Draw Mohammed Day, May 20th

sensibleken · 14-05-2010 04:00PM

Wicknight wrote: »

To demonstrate that you have that freedom.

If a Danish cartoonists wants to be a dick he should be able to without threat of death.

true. i dont condone the death threats at all. lots of people get murdered over insults. if someone insults another really badly and gets killed for his troubles the murderer will, if hes caught, go to jail, as he is a bigger dick than the guy who insulted him.

if the murdered guys ghost could be contacted like they do all the time on most haunted then he would probably wish he hadnt had made the remark because being dead is boring

isnt this just a whose a bigger dick competition. by which i mean proving your a dick to provoke the other guy into being a bigger dick, therefore proving your less of a dick.

your still a dick

robindch · 14-05-2010 04:04PM

storm2811 wrote: »

I do think this Mohammed thing is being treated like a joke.

Erm, that's the point

More seriously, it's silly for people to expect to be respected, just because they've demanded it -- that's the province of the violent and the ignorant. We do things differently in modern societies and we try to respect people for what they do and what kind of a person they are.

If some guy (or gal) is going to demand that I respect for no other reason than they think they're due it, then frankly, they can go take a hike.

All the cartoonists are doing is pointing out that this demanding of respect (while it might be irritating for some) is dangerous for society as a whole. Unfortunately, a lot of islamic religious just don't see it that way, because they want respect too. Without having to earn it.

Flamed Diving · 14-05-2010 04:04PM

storm2811 wrote: »

No,I don't agree with the way some muslims react to people drawing pictures of mohammed but i still think that this idea is not respecting their beliefs and that whoever made it up is just doing it to cause hassle and controversy..

Personal belief does not deserve respect. It is someones opinion, nothing more.

Zombrex · 14-05-2010 04:06PM

sensibleken wrote: »

isnt this just a whose a bigger dick competition. by which i mean proving your a dick to provoke the other guy into being a bigger dick, therefore proving your less of a dick.

your still a dick

And?

You seem to be missing the point here. This guy was a dick. And certain Muslims threated to have him killed.

This created the effect that now lots and lots of people are scared to offend, or even possibly offend (as parodied by South Park with everyone asking "Is this ok?") extreme Muslims lest the same thing happens to them.

The protest is about showing that we as a society will not allow intimidation to erode freedoms.

The issue isn't whether he is a dick or not, the issue whether we will allow him and anyone else to be a dick according to Muslims or whether we will succumb to violence and intimidation from Muslims and silence ourselves lest we face similar threat.

Extreme violent Muslims are not going to dictate to us what we should or shouldn't allow in our society.

Flamed Diving · 14-05-2010 04:08PM

fufureida wrote: »

IM GONNA GO DRAW A PICTURE OF A PRIEST MOlESTING A LITTLE BOY AND PUBLISH IT IN A NEWS PAPER WITH PLENTY OF HARD LINE CATHOLIC READERS AND HOPE NOONE HATES ME FOR IT.

It is interesting how you place this on the same level as someone drawing a simple image of Mo-Mo.

The term drama queens again comes to mind. But relatively speaking, Islam is the teenager of the Abrahamic world, so I guess it suits.

Mark Hamill · 14-05-2010 04:11PM

storm2811 wrote: »

But in christanity,it doesn't say that we can't show images of jesus,same goes for buddhism,hinduism,judaism etc.
But for muslims,it is something that offends them and is a strong belief of theirs,and we just do it anyway.

Because the muslim belief is that muslims should not draw mohammed, its a personal belief, not an impersonal one because the act of me drawing mohammed has no effect on any else, unless the choose for it to have an effect.

storm2811 wrote: »

"If someone truely believes mohammed shouldn't be drawn then they must also believe in god and heaven and hell and people being judged after they die for what they do."
Well yes,most muslims(and people who are members of other religions)do believe in a god and afterlife etc.?

If you are going to ignore the rest of what I said, then why even bother to quote this?

storm2811 wrote: »

I don't believe it should be drawn because it is offensive and is just pointless to do so really,not because any religious beliefs i may have.

Its not offensive. Its against muslim rules which only apply to muslims and some muslims seem to want to get offended when other people dont want to live by their rules.

You base a lot of your points on south park episodes,which obviously just do things for controversy and so people will watch(i'm not going to be a hypocrite,i do watch south park:pac:) but they make fun of everything,and a lot of it is nonsense.

Exactly, they make of everything and anything and its all nonsense, just a bit of fun, but to make a peep against islam is when all the complaints and threats come in. That is what should be condemned. Everything is up for being made fun of. If people learned to ignore the jokes they dont like and once in a while laugh along at the onec made in friendly jest everyone will get along a lot more happily.

MikeC101 · 14-05-2010 04:15PM

fufureida wrote: »

Now if you excuse me IM GONNA GO DRAW A PICTURE OF A PRIEST MOlESTING A LITTLE BOY AND PUBLISH IT IN A NEWS PAPER WITH PLENTY OF HARD LINE CATHOLIC READERS AND HOPE NOONE HATES ME FOR IT.

Knock yourself out - it's been done.

(Of course I doubt such a newspaper would publish it, much like I doubt Jyllands-Posten was read by a huge amount of hard line Muslims.)

On a slightly ironic twist re: child abuse, how old was Aisha when Mohammed married her - six or seven? But hey, he didn't consumate it until nine or ten, right?

Flamed Diving · 14-05-2010 04:19PM

fufureida wrote: »

but purposely adding fuel to the flame? That I don't get.

Threats, threats, threats.

That's what Islam fails to get. Nay, it cannot get. You simply won't get anywhere with threatening people, either subtly or by declaring a million jihads.

As the video said, freedom of speech is non-negotiable. No matter how many hissy-fits are thrown. I suggest you study the history of Europe to see how many people died to win this right, and to maintain it. It might help you understand.

sensibleken · 14-05-2010 04:21PM

Wicknight wrote: »

The issue isn't whether he is a dick or not, the issue whether we will allow him and anyone else to be a dick according to Muslims or whether we will succumb to violence and intimidation from Muslims and silence ourselves lest we face similar threat.

how far would you allow someone to be a dick? what about libel. thats freedom of speech to but we in the glorious 'im wet for freedom' west deem that illegal

Mark Hamill · 14-05-2010 04:23PM

sensibleken wrote: »

isnt this just a whose a bigger dick competition. by which i mean proving your a dick to provoke the other guy into being a bigger dick, therefore proving your less of a dick.

your still a dick

No, not really, not at all. This is people standing for free speech. This is people standing up to the type of people who arrest a school teacher for allowing her students to call a teddy bear "Mohammed":

A British schoolteacher has been arrested in Sudan accused of insulting Islam's Prophet, after she allowed her pupils to name a teddy bear Muhammad.

and who call for the execution of a man who drew a humorous character where the name Mohammed was used in a joke at someone elses expense:

Another controversy emerged in September 2007 when Bangladeshi cartoonist Arifur Rahman was detained on suspicion of showing disrespect to Muhammad. The interim government confiscated copies of the Bengali-language Prothom Alo in which the drawings appeared. The cartoon consisted of a boy holding a cat conversing with an elderly man. The man asks the boy his name, and he replies "Babu". The older man chides him for not mentioning the name of Muhammad before his name. He then points to the cat and asks the boy what it is called, and the boy replies "Muhammad the cat". The cartoon caused a firestorm in Bangladesh, with militant Islamists demanding that Rahman be executed for blasphemy. A group of people torched copies of the paper and several Islamic groups protested, saying the drawings ridiculed Mohammad and his companions. They demanded "exemplary punishment" for the paper's editor and the cartoonist.

These people are scum and need to be show the world will not bend over for their stupidity and insecurity.

Flamed Diving · 14-05-2010 04:27PM

sensibleken wrote: »

true but why strive to be a dick? violent reation by some muslims to these cartoons is dickish behaviour bred from dickish behaviour of cartoonists.

this is also freedom of speech

and its being a dick

another way of expressing your freedom of speech is drawing a picture of a close friends mother being gang raped, putting it on a t shirt and turning up to your friends mothers funeral.

and then blaming everyone for not looking the other way when in actual fact you were being a dick

It will never fail to impress me just how much people can miss the point of a debate. I don't hold much hope for you ever getting it, based on my reading of your posts, in this thread. For that reason, I won't even attempt to explain.

sensibleken · 14-05-2010 04:30PM

Mark Hamill wrote: »

No, not really, not at all. This is people standing for free speech. This is people standing up to the type of people who arrest a school teacher for allowing her students to call a teddy bear "Mohammed":
.

rule number one on this forum is 'no personal insults' this is a degredation of freedom of speech, most likely put in to stop people getting angry and acting like dicks. and thats fair enough no?

so do you think there should be any restrictions on freedom of speech?

strobe · 14-05-2010 04:36PM

storm2811 wrote: »

But in christanity,it doesn't say that we can't show images of jesus,same goes for buddhism,hinduism,judaism etc.
But for muslims,it is something that offends them and is a strong belief of theirs,and we just do it anyway.

Actually in Christianity and Judaism you aren't even supposed to say gods name in vain. They call it blasphemy. There was a time when if you were to step on something sharp and shout out "holy fukking god that hurts". You would have been dragged through the streets and then pelted to death with rocks. {as seen in the below documentary that was filmed at the time

}

The Jews don't do that too much anymore. You know why? Civilisation advanced. People didn't stop saying Jehova but they did tell the people that threatened them not to do it, to stop their bitching and put up with it. It's time for Islam to follow suit, grow up and stop acting like such spoilt children.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYkbqzWVHZI

sensibleken · 14-05-2010 04:36PM

Flamed Diving wrote: »

It will never fail to impress me just how much people can miss the point of a debate. I don't hold much hope for you ever getting it, based on my reading of your posts, in this thread. For that reason, I won't even attempt to explain.

i understand perfectly well. you want to draw pictures of mohammed to show fundamentalist islam that you will not sacrifice your right of speech to make way for their right not to get offended. and that violent reaction to being offended is not acceptable in western civilisation

i am positing a counter point while trying to fit the word dick in as many times as possible. dick

MikeC101 · 14-05-2010 04:44PM

sensibleken wrote: »

rule number one on this forum is 'no personal insults' this is a degredation of freedom of speech, most likely put in to stop people getting angry and acting like dicks. and thats fair enough no?

Freedom of speech doesn't apply to private forums - they can be run as the owners please.

sensibleken wrote: »

so do you think there should be any restrictions on freedom of speech?

I don't necessarily agree that freedom of speech encompasses what you seem to be implying - Article 10, ECHR - "Everyone has the right of freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without inference by public authority and regardless of frontiers."

It's not a defense for libel or slander, for example.

Do you think that we shouldn't do other things that might offend religious people? Divorce, be gay, drink alcohol, eat pork, have access to contraception, grow different types of crops in one field and so on? Or is it only the religious people who are willing to resort to violence that we should not be dicks to?

robindch · 14-05-2010 04:45PM

sensibleken wrote: »

what about libel. thats freedom of speech to but we in the glorious 'im wet for freedom' west deem that illegal

sensibleken wrote: »

rule number one on this forum is 'no personal insults' this is a degredation of freedom of speech

On this forum, and in this society, you are allowed to insult ideas as much as you like. In neither place are you allowed to insult people.

Ideas are not people and cannot feel insulted.

Mark Hamill · 14-05-2010 04:53PM

sensibleken wrote: »

i understand perfectly well. you want to draw pictures of mohammed to show fundamentalist islam that you will not sacrifice your right of speech to make way for their right not to get offended. and that violent reaction to being offended is not acceptable in western civilisation

i am positing a counter point while trying to fit the word dick in as many times as possible. dick

So what we have is a situation where some people are fighting for freedom of speech and some people are fighting to silence those they dont like and one lonely little guy on the internet trying to be a dick.
Feel useful do you?

sonicthebadger* · 14-05-2010 04:58PM

sensibleken wrote: »

true but why strive to be a dick? violent reation by some muslims to these cartoons is dickish behaviour bred from dickish behaviour of cartoonists.

this is also freedom of speech
image removed...
and its being a dick

another way of expressing your freedom of speech is drawing a picture of a close friends mother being gang raped, putting it on a t shirt and turning up to your friends mothers funeral.

and then blaming everyone for not looking the other way when in actual fact you were being a dick

sensibleken wrote: »

rule number one on this forum is 'no personal insults' this is a degredation of freedom of speech, most likely put in to stop people getting angry and acting like dicks. and thats fair enough no?

so do you think there should be any restrictions on freedom of speech?

It'd be a pretty boring forum if there was just a string of personal insults in every thread. Each post should be a post to everyone in the room. If you want to get personal PM someone.

sensibleken wrote: »

i understand perfectly well. you want to draw pictures of mohammed to show fundamentalist islam that you will not sacrifice your right of speech to make way for their right not to get offended. and that violent reaction to being offended is not acceptable in western civilisation

i am positing a counter point while trying to fit the word dick in as many times as possible. dick

Dick is a good word. But anyhoo, so my Mother dies and my mate shows up with an offensive t-shirt cause he thinks it's funny to be a dick. It's not really funny but guess what?!?! I DON'T KILL THE GUY! Nor do I put a price on his head (offering to pay extra if he dies in a particularly violent way). You aren't posting a counter point you're essentially asking why we shouldn't kill people who behave like dicks, there's two reasons:

1) It gets out of hand really really fast.

2) Telling them they're a dick and you don't want to be their friend anymore is way more effective at stopping the behaviour.

drkpower · 14-05-2010 04:59PM

It annoys me when a queue of people forms to publish things they know to be offensive to others. Usually, at the front of this queue, there are those who do so to highlight the great harm that is caused when it becomes acceptable to censor legitimate & noble pursuits (political/social commentary, satire, criticism of an ideology etc) for fear of offending certain people. I applaud these people.

However, at the rear of the queue there are the many who publish purely to be gratuitously offensive. I hate these people. And I really really hate the people who lazily trot out the tagline 'freedom of speech' in an attempt to claim the moral high ground, most of them not having a clue as to what 'freedom of speech' actually entails. Or those who claim that causing gratuitous offence actually upholds freedom of speech. I fcuking despise those idiots.

With the right of free speech comes the responsibility to use it wisely. Those who gratuitously offend (for no other reason than to merely cause offence) do a great deal of harm to the idea of free speech. So yeah, there might be some merit in having a 'Draw Mohammed Day' to highlight the danger of the ideology that says you should die for causing offence, but those who get such an obvious sense of glee from publishing these things usually do more harm than good.

sensibleken · 14-05-2010 05:02PM

MikeC101 wrote: »

Freedom of speech doesn't apply to private forums - they can be run as the owners please.

ok so some restriction on freedom of speech is ok if someone in control, in this case the owner of the forum, wishes it to be so

MikeC101 wrote: »

I don't necessarily agree that freedom of speech encompasses what you seem to be implying - Article 10, ECHR - "Everyone has the right of freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without inference by public authority and regardless of frontiers."

It's not a defense for libel or slander, for example.

but is this exercise not slander? well no i suppose it isnt so i dont know why i typed that instead of deleting it.

unless its a defamatory drawing of mohammed

sensibleken · 14-05-2010 05:07PM

Mark Hamill wrote: »

So what we have is a situation where some people are fighting for freedom of speech and some people are fighting to silence those they dont like and one lonely little guy on the internet trying to be a dick.
Feel useful do you?

im not trying to be a dick. im trying to reduce the amount of dickness. im also not fighting at all, its called discussion. and im average height, lets not get personal

MikeC101 · 14-05-2010 05:08PM

sensibleken wrote: »

ok so some restriction on freedom of speech is ok if someone in control, in this case the owner of the forum, wishes it to be so

It's not to do with whose in control, I'm just pointing out a common misunderstanding in regards to freedom of speech - it means the state can't restrict your right, but it does not apply to private forums.

sensibleken wrote: »

but is this exercise not slander? well no i suppose it isnt so i dont know why i typed that instead of deleting it.

I don't see how - firstly, slander generally refers to spoken word, so you might be thinking of libel. Secondly, you can't libel the dead under Irish law as far as I know. Thirdly, I don't see how drawing a picture of someone constitutes libel.

sensibleken wrote: »

unless its a defamatory drawing of mohammed

He's free to try and sue me I suppose. He might not be too happy with the court artists. Though to be fair, I'm not aware of Mohammed stating no one should create images of him. I thought there were ancient mosques with images of Mohammed in them, and the idea that this is forbidden is a later school of thought.

Edit:

And any chance of an answer on this, as you seem to be avoiding it:

Do you think that we shouldn't do other things that might offend religious people? Divorce, be gay, drink alcohol, eat pork, have access to contraception, grow different types of crops in one field and so on? Or is it only the religious people who are willing to resort to violence that we should not be dicks to?

sensibleken · 14-05-2010 05:10PM

MikeC101 wrote: »

He's free to try and sue me I suppose. He might not be too happy with the court artists. Though to be fair, I'm not aware of Mohammed stating no one should crea

haha good one

MikeC101 · 14-05-2010 05:13PM

sensibleken wrote: »

haha good one

Mohammed struck me down with his power of fire mid edit, I had to get an extinguisher.

robindch · 14-05-2010 05:13PM

sensibleken wrote: »

unless its a defamatory drawing of mohammed

It's a fundamental principle of libel law that you cannot defame the dead.

sensibleken · 14-05-2010 05:16PM

sorry i did skip over this, not deliberately

Do you think that we shouldn't do other things that might offend religious people? Divorce, be gay, drink alcohol, eat pork, have access to contraception, grow different types of crops in one field and so on? Or is it only the religious people who are willing to resort to violence that we should not be dicks to?

no i dont. those things are being yourself and not a deliberate attempt to annoy people. if your gay just to annoy people or drinking just to annoy people then yes your a dick.

Mark Hamill · 14-05-2010 05:17PM

sensibleken wrote: »

im not trying to be a dick. im trying to reduce the amount of dickness. im also not fighting at all, its called discussion. and im average height, lets not get personal

You weren't one of the groups fighting, you were the lonely little guy trying to be a dick, infered from your admission that you were purposely trying to say dick as much as possible.

sensibleken wrote: »

im average height

There are many different ways to be little.

Dades · 14-05-2010 05:20PM

I appreciate that the "Draw Mohammed Day" is intended to be a fcuk you to the type of Muslim that seeks to restrict the freedoms of those who don't share their faith, but I do feel that the collateral damage to the sensibilities of moderate Muslims possibly makes the exercise a counter productive one.

The only people who don't condone 'free speech' on this subject are hardly going to have their minds changed by this stunt, and may wind up with more people on their side instead.

I'm a bit torn on this so I may change my mind later. :pac:

sensibleken · 14-05-2010 05:22PM

Mark Hamill wrote: »

You weren't one of the groups fighting, you were the lonely little guy trying to be a dick, infered from your admission that you were purposely trying to say dick as much as possible.

There are many different ways to be little.

sorry were you fighting? i presume that when you draw a picture of mohammed you will send it to some islamic fundamentalists with a photo, your address and a list of your allergies. being so brave

really, no need to be personal. im actually having a pleasant debate with the other people in this thread

robindch · 14-05-2010 05:22PM

sensibleken wrote: »

im not trying to be a dick.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

There are many different ways to be little.

Now, now ladies. Politeness please

Draw Mohammed Day, May 20th

Comments