| Poll |
| Should your always use your freedom of speech |
| Yes freedom of sppech is so importent that one should alwayes speek ones mind. |
|
61% |
[ 132 ] |
| No you should not use your freedom of speech to insult people. |
|
38% |
[ 82 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 214 |
|
Snappy_Dresser
Joined: Feb 11, 2005
|
 Posted:
Feb 10, 2006 - 10:23 |
 
|
This thread is amazing. No one is really saying anything (not much anyway), but I can't look away. It's like reality television. |
|
|
Smess
Joined: Feb 13, 2004
|
| Posted:
Feb 10, 2006 - 13:45 |
|
Sidenote:
This is a view on racism that i like (seems to be founded on theories of Lacan):
The key problem in racism is not that the differences between the two are to big, but that the SIMILARITIES are to big. If the other one resembles you that much, then who are you?
Hence some people need to enlarge the differences, in order to make a clear cut definition of themselves as opposed to the other(s). |
|
|
McLaren
Joined: Jan 19, 2006
|
| Posted:
Feb 10, 2006 - 14:09 |
|
It always amazes me that those who use their free speech most are the ones least likely to defend it when it needs defending.
And how someone can side with the Muhammedans on this one really makes me wonder. Should terror and ignorance be our new ideal? The craziest person should get his will through? Because you are ready to die for your cause, does that make you right?
To bow down to terrorism will never be an option.
Free speech is the right to say something without getting your head bashed in... (...the biker-gang-anthology)
And someone said, many pages before this, that the poll is dumb, and I agree. Needs more option if it shall break away from the spoiled-anarchy-kid-trying-to-prove-fanatics-right - appearance. |
|
|
Busklusker
Joined: Dec 29, 2005
|
| Posted:
Feb 10, 2006 - 14:17 |
|
well the problem is that some Muslims want there to be problems amongs them Danish Imans... The catoons were even posted in Egypt not that long after and nobody really cared.... so it is, as i see it, just a case of a lot of things going bad and then the muslims found a small country to be mad at and now it back fired.... Was it right to publish the cartoons well maybe not but they do have the right to do so. it is part of our democracy... and on a side not it is not like the Muslims are that nice to other religions (Jews and Cristians) so maybe they should also look at them self... with alll this said i think they have a right to be angry and well if they wish to boycut they have the right to do so.. freedom to choose... but attacking ambasies and treatening danish turist is fare out |
|
|
Skrofler
Joined: Aug 16, 2005
|
| Posted:
Feb 10, 2006 - 14:46 |
|
| Blackcrag wrote: | | Now every newspaper has an editor who has the responsibility for what is brought in the newspaper - so if he chooses to bring provocative pictures of Mohammad, well, he had the final choice and thus has decided that these pictures were suitable for his newspaper. I know for a fact that the editor asked several experts in Islam about how these pictures would be perceived and was told that he could expect a very negative reaction - but he went ahead and printed them anyway. |
Indeed. That's what I like about this whole thing. No (or little) self censorship. You don't have to like everything that's printed and if there weren't no distasteful images ever printed, all that would lead to would be to shrink the space of free speech and to narrow the minds of the public.
| Blackcrag wrote: | | I do not doubt that part of the editor's intentions was to break a religious taboo - but i find it hard to believe that that was the sole intention - IF that was the case he could have made twelve rather innocent drawings of the prophet Mohammad - instead he chose to publish some extremely offensive pictures - among them the famous bomb-turban (with arabic writings saying "La Ila Ille Allah" - meaning "There is no god except God" on the bomb) - or the distasteful poem about the suppression of the prophet... |
Taboo breking may not have been the sole intention but as I see it it was obviously the main issue.
Only three of the drawings I would say was so nasty that their intention could be to incite dislike towards islam, clearly showing themes of the ugly fundamentalist face of islam (which most muslims naturally detest). On the other hand, I didn't perceive them in this way and the paper reaches out to everybody who can read Danish, not just the muslims of Denmark. Two images instead make fun of JP. Another adresses very directly the back story of a cartoonist nervously drawing a picture. Two were downright comic and the other four didn't really tell me anything in particular. They were truly innocent.
I would not say that this distribution of leans and perspectives from satire of Islam to mocking JP can be said to show a clear intention to do anything other than to address the core issue of inconoclasm and to test or stretch the boundaries of satire and censorship. |
_________________
Available to play (server time);
Mondays, 20:00-0:00
Tuesdays, 20:00-0:00
Wednesdays, 20:00-0:00
Thursdays, 22:00-0:00
Fridays, preferably not
Weekends, generally daytime 8:00-17:00 |
|
hoiyes
Joined: Jan 11, 2006
|
| Posted:
Feb 10, 2006 - 15:07 |
|
You know what's funny? That there is pages and pages of discussion all over the internet, debates all over the news. This is a world-wide incident caused by satirical images in a newspaper, it was not hatemongering (I conceed those receptive to racism would have had their racist views affirmed though not by the same degree as the susequent violence affirmed) nor was it targetting. How many times do you see comical depictions of Buddha, Jesus and Vishnu yet how often do we see Buddhists burning flags, Hindu's burning embassies and Christians beheading people. To say the comics caused any of this is ludicrous, if was a matter of time, to extremist Muslims women who are uncovered are offensive yet no-one burned down an australian embassy for publishing FHM & Ralph magazines yet. It's gone beyond race. There is tension in the world again and during tension the zealots gain power. The Islamic zealots in the Middle East are choosing the path over violence while the Christian zealots in America (and the Jewish in Israel) are choosing iron fisted control and removal of rights. They are as bad as each other and it's not until the less vocal minority stand up and be counted against this sort of s**t on both sides that this will be over.
That's exactly what the Danes were saying. We aren't scared of you and will fight your form of extremism. Good on them for not keeping tight lipped and PC in this age of shrinking rights/values. |
Last edited by hoiyes on %b %10, %2006 - %15:%Feb; edited 1 time in total |
|
Skrofler
Joined: Aug 16, 2005
|
| Posted:
Feb 10, 2006 - 15:08 |
|
| MickeX wrote: | | inquisitorpustus wrote: | | You also may want to look up the defenition of 'racism'. |
| wikipedia wrote: | The United Nations uses a definition of racist discrimination laid out in the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination and adopted in 1966:
...any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life. |
|
If this is the definition you use then it becomes very obvious to me that you've misinterpreted the intentions of a lot of people.
For example, the reasons why GWB decided to invade Iraq wasn't the fact that they belong to another ethnic or prismatic group. (*) It is simply a matter of America losing money off Iraqi policies. It doesn't have anything to do with racism. Similarily you could find pragmatic intentions (mostly economic) behind most other conflicts and issues between people that just happen to be of different origin.
| Uber wrote: | | I hope the admins would step up against freedom of speech and lock up this meaningless thread. |
Just don't read it then. Don't try to spoil the fun for the rest of us.
*
(This is not to imply that you view this particular example in this light. It's just an example.) |
_________________
Available to play (server time);
Mondays, 20:00-0:00
Tuesdays, 20:00-0:00
Wednesdays, 20:00-0:00
Thursdays, 22:00-0:00
Fridays, preferably not
Weekends, generally daytime 8:00-17:00 |
|
Axon
Joined: Dec 19, 2005
|
| Posted:
Feb 10, 2006 - 15:43 |
|
| HollowOne wrote: | | Jinxed wrote: | | I mean; even the thought of apologising over a stupid cartoon? |
What, so it's perfectly acceptable to insult people? Just because you're free to express yourself, and therefore to insult others, does not make it commendable or respectable when you do so specifically to offend people. A sincere apology is the least the people who printed those pictures could have offered the Muslim community.
That being said, being insulted doesn't justify violence, either; were I to tell a Christian that Jesus was a terrorist, he'd be wrong to strike me or burn my house down, no matter offended he was. |
An apology to the Muslim community? You gotta be kidding me! Apology for what??
Firstly, there is no express written prohibition in the Quaran against depictions or images of The Prophet nor against satire of Islam. In fact, Islam has a rich tradition of doing both. Secondly these same types of cartoons have been printed "featuring", i.e. some malcontent spouting off about, Christianity and our sacred persons, Judiasm, (and probably every other religion), against my own beloved USA and my conservative party and values.
Face it: for every political faction or religious movement going back to the printing press, there has been cartoon satire. And many of these cartoons have offended my beliefs and angered me personally in just as deeply and personal ways. I have burned nothing.
So, where is my apology? Where is the apology to groups, and individuals I hold dear? Where is the apology to my religion? Where is the apology of these rioters to the Danes? And most importantly: Where is the apology to the Muslim people by the fundamentalist wackos, who have hijacked a beautiful, traditional religion and twisted it to their own extreme political agenda? |
|
|
MickeX
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Feb 10, 2006 - 15:49 |
|
| Skrofler wrote: | | For example, the reasons why GWB decided to invade Iraq wasn't the fact that they belong to another ethnic or prismatic group. (*) It is simply a matter of America losing money off Iraqi policies. It doesn't have anything to do with racism. |
Let's have a look at the similarities of a few examples of colonial expansion and racism:
- Great Britain aquiring their colonies
- Japan colonizing Korea
- Germany trying to colonize Eastern Europe
- USA occupying Iraq
In neither of those cases was the reason behind the expansion racism, but prospects of economic gain. To defend the policies ideologically, however, there's a need for some kind of racist world view to assert that the natives/untermensch/crazy muslims can't govern themselves.
In all these cases, the resistance was portrayed as minorities of terrorist-minded barbarians who would stop at nothing to hinder the progress of civilization. Several of the danish pictures are prime examples of this, actually borrowing from the kind of blunt stereotypes generally used up until the end of WW2.
I think the obvious question in this specific discussion, that none of you have managed to answer so far, is by what rationale western governments defends free speech in Denmark but outlaw it in Iraq. My answer would be that the underlying rationale that keeps this comparison from popping up is colonial racism: that iraqis don't really have the same need for free speech as western people, because they're a bit backwards anyway. |
|
|
Skrofler
Joined: Aug 16, 2005
|
| Posted:
Feb 10, 2006 - 16:08 |
|
| MickeX wrote: | | Skrofler wrote: | | For example, the reasons why GWB decided to invade Iraq wasn't the fact that they belong to another ethnic or prismatic group. (*) It is simply a matter of America losing money off Iraqi policies. It doesn't have anything to do with racism. |
Let's have a look at the similarities of a few examples of colonial expansion and racism:
- Great Britain aquiring their colonies
- Japan colonizing Korea
- Germany trying to colonize Eastern Europe
- USA occupying Iraq |
This first three examples are history and not what I was addressing. Back then, racism was even accepted and supported by contemporary science to the point of being obviously justifiable and even openly supported by the respective governments.
Therefore these are not good examples to compare with modern day affairs such as the fourth example.
| MickeX wrote: | | I think the obvious question in this specific discussion, that none of you have managed to answer so far, is by what rationale western governments defends free speech in Denmark but outlaw it in Iraq. My answer would be that the underlying rationale that keeps this comparison from popping up is colonial racism: that iraqis don't really have the same need for free speech as western people, because they're a bit backwards anyway. |
Free speech in Denmark has limits. Those limits are set by the government for reasons of upholding the interests of the ruling government. The same applies to the U.S. The same also applies to Iraq. It's just that the U.S. are currently the rulers of Iraq.
It's as simple as that. It's a simple question of all powers trying the best they can to gain and hold power. Power is like an organism among other organisms of human concepts trying to stay on top of each other.
If power thought it would benefit from playing the race card right now it definately would, but it needn't so it won't. Other lies are more effective. |
_________________
Available to play (server time);
Mondays, 20:00-0:00
Tuesdays, 20:00-0:00
Wednesdays, 20:00-0:00
Thursdays, 22:00-0:00
Fridays, preferably not
Weekends, generally daytime 8:00-17:00 |
|
Meech
Joined: Sep 15, 2005
|
| Posted:
Feb 10, 2006 - 16:34 |
|
Heh, I agree with Skrofler (and enjoy reading his and other's opinion). I hope that the Admins don't lock the thread. It is very interesting to see how other countries view what is going on in Iraq and the world compared to how it is portrayed in our (American) media. Unfortunately, even though we live in a world where we can get information from around the world in seconds, it still is only as trustworthy as the source.
Of course this isn't a thread about (dis)information and trusting the press. |
_________________
Putting the FU in fumbbl since 9/2005 |
|
Buur
Joined: Apr 29, 2004
|
| Posted:
Feb 10, 2006 - 16:46 |
|
@McLaren: Saying that it was plain stupid to publish the drawing, is not the same as agreeing or defending the reactions or the religion! (which you of course know)
Quote: Freedom of speech is the right not to get your head bashed in....
yes yes... but we did know some of them are crazy religious extremist, before we started pissing them off.
And if we want to show them a better (democratic) Way, we shouldn't start out with offending them and showing all the bad things they shall put up with (Being harassed for their religion) if they change and become more like us!
And for the poll... either you think it is right put piss people off or you dont that was the choices the editor had.....
-Buur |
_________________
For most people, reason is nothing but their own believes.
Last edited by Buur on %b %10, %2006 - %16:%Feb; edited 1 time in total |
|
MickeX
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Feb 10, 2006 - 16:47 |
|
| Skrofler wrote: | | MickeX wrote: | | Skrofler wrote: | | For example, the reasons why GWB decided to invade Iraq wasn't the fact that they belong to another ethnic or prismatic group. (*) It is simply a matter of America losing money off Iraqi policies. It doesn't have anything to do with racism. |
Let's have a look at the similarities of a few examples of colonial expansion and racism:
- Great Britain aquiring their colonies
- Japan colonizing Korea
- Germany trying to colonize Eastern Europe
- USA occupying Iraq |
This first three examples are history and not what I was addressing. Back then, racism was even accepted and supported by contemporary science to the point of being obviously justifiable and even openly supported by the respective governments.
Therefore these are not good examples to compare with modern day affairs such as the fourth example.
|
Would you say the same about Great Britain or France after WW2? They weren't measuring skulls, but they sure used a racist ideology to defend their position as colonial states.
The key similarity between the four expansions is that neither of them were caused by racism (but they were all defended with racist arguments). In the case of the US, you draw the faulty conclusion that the occupation "doesn't have anything to do with racism". Do you draw the same conclusion about the other three? Why not?
The old moral/amoral trick (about where free speech matters) doesn't answer the question: you choose to speak out about free press in Denmark, but you don't speak out about it in Iraq. Why? |
|
|
Skrofler
Joined: Aug 16, 2005
|
| Posted:
Feb 10, 2006 - 18:05 |
|
| MickeX wrote: | | The key similarity between the four expansions is that neither of them were caused by racism (but they were all defended with racist arguments). In the case of the US, you draw the faulty conclusion that the occupation "doesn't have anything to do with racism". Do you draw the same conclusion about the other three? Why not? |
Now I think we have reached the real point of disagreement, which is good, and I don't think we could convince each other to make a change of mind. I truly believe that racism was a cause (not the cause) for olden times colonisation. I sincerely believe that africans in most people's minds were inferior to europeans. I am quite positive that this is not the case today.
| MickeX wrote: | | The old moral/amoral trick (about where free speech matters) doesn't answer the question: you choose to speak out about free press in Denmark, but you don't speak out about it in Iraq. Why? |
Was this what you were asking before? In that case I misinterpreted. This one's a no-brainer.
The topic of discussion is free press in Denmark, not Iraq. When the topic is freedom in Iraq, then I will gladly defend those Iraqis who wish to increase their personal freedom.
In my world it's perfectly allright to discuss one thing without necessarily mentioning all tangeant topics. In fact I prefer it. |
_________________
Available to play (server time);
Mondays, 20:00-0:00
Tuesdays, 20:00-0:00
Wednesdays, 20:00-0:00
Thursdays, 22:00-0:00
Fridays, preferably not
Weekends, generally daytime 8:00-17:00 |
|
MickeX
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Feb 10, 2006 - 18:52 |
|
| Skrofler wrote: | | I truly believe that racism was a cause (not the cause) for olden times colonisation. I sincerely believe that africans in most people's minds were inferior to europeans. I am quite positive that this is not the case today. |
You gotta love liberalism. Profit seeking is the source of all human action, except the one's that todays liberals can't defend anymore. Capital maximizes profit, but never steps outside of the law, never influences politics for other than the best, never incites war.
If you have a look at colonial racist classics like John Stuart Mill, you'll find that he didn't find blacks genetically inferior - they were simply backwards and needed to learn how to obey before they could be trusted to govern themselves. The exact same arguments used today. (You'll have a hard time avoiding the obvious connection between the profits of colonial exploitation and the development of racist ideologies if you try reading up on their history.)
To get rid of your ideas about racism being long gone in Europe, just read through this thread. What BigMac, inquisitorpustus an others are posting are classic racist arguments, no more and no less. You'll find very few muslims in Europe that sees racism as a thing of the past, yet you do. |
|
|
|
|
| |
SWL Season CI
Search
