Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Et Cetera, Et Cetera' started by Shelby, Feb 10, 2006.
Should the cartoons that have muslims all riled up be published?
Why pour water on a grease fire?
On the one hand we'll swear that it's okay to publish such a cartoon (freedom of speech, etc.) while on the other hand we'll deny a school the right to sing Christmas carols because they might hurt somebody's feelings.
What a world.
the level of outrage coming out of the Middle East over this just goes to show that these people enjoy being angry. They literally have nothing else better to do than give themselves bleeding head wounds and call it a holiday, yell and scream and burn stuff while shooting their automatic weapons into the air, democratically elect theocracies and terrorist organizations, and occasionally blow themselves up.
granted.. we've democratically elected our own theocracy...
but ABC didn't get burned down by angry Christians when they put The Book of Daniel on the air.
I don't actually know what station that show was on but it would have broken the tempo if I had to pause and state that.
It's hard to believe Matt Stone and Trey Parker are still alive.
Wasn't it shortly after 9/11 that we were being told how 'tolerant' and 'accepting' Islam is? If a cartoon is so offensive, imagine what they would do if you were a man and shaved your beard off or were a woman without a head covering. Oh wait, we already know...
Looks like the man behind the curtain has been revealed...
YES!!! Freedom of the press (or whatever you guys call it over there) should be just as important in the EU as it is here in the states. Plus, I love anything that exposes hypocrisy, especially on such a large scale.
Incidentally, I ripped this off from Michael Lucas's blog, who stole it from Lady Bunny. I think we're all mature enough here to recognize the absurd humor and not to get sucked in to the racism.
First off, lololololol, hilarious.
The question is not: Should these cartoons be published, but should these cartoon be able to be published without violent reactions. The answer is unapologetically: YES!
Is it in bad tatse to depict the Prophet Muhhamed in the light he was depicted? Perhaps. Should they have been published? Perhaps, if they did serve a purpose. But it doesn't matter, people should be allowed to publish whatever they want, no matter who they offend or just how offensive they are. This does not mean they can get away with anything they say without consequences. But the consequences should never be violent.
I think we're extremely close to being right there ourselves. Give the fundies here a few more years in power (remember the tremendous head start THEIR fundies have had) and we'll blow them out of the water. We have better weapons.
Thou shalt cast no image of Matt and Trey.
Publicise the pics. Fuck 'em. They don't hesitate to satirise our leaders, I say theirs are fair game. We make fun of everyone, they don't get a pass because of their own egos.
Just shy of it. The idiots made enough noise about it. This all lends support to Dr. Rock's opinion about religion per se. Muslim zealots/Christian zealots; "six of one, half dozen of the other".
Amen sister! This applies to soooooo many things going on in the world right now.
It was. I thought so too. I was shaking my head in disbelief.
Fucking "religionists", I swear there's effectively no distinguishing them from one another.
Let's have a tug-'o-war!
"GIMME MY GOD!" says the Muslim! "No! He's MY GOD!" says the Christian. Fucking tedious.
Hooray! 100% correct (imo) answers.
The Seattle times has chosen "not to incite violence" while the obviously more ballsy editor of another local rag, The Stranger, is choosing to let their readers decide whether or not they're offensive.
screw islam and nuke the middle east
(it's the only way to be sure)
Better do it quick. They may nuke us first!
And then, out of the other side of their mouth, people will complain that it's unfair how all christians are painted with the same brush.
It's just a matter of time. So far it's been mostly abortion clinics and gay bars.
Has anyone actually noticed how it has taken 4 months for the protests to
happen ? These cartoons were published back in september 2005.
And how is it that there are plenty of Dannish flags to be found in the middle
eastern countries ?
Do you think that mabey someone is stirring the pot a little ?
And has anyone ever seen the anti semitic and anti christian cartoons
in arabic newspapers?
Makes you wonder...
If the Danish paper felt strongly that the cartoon reflected a sentiment worthy of discussion, they were right to publish it. If people were offended by it, they have the right to protest it. They don't have the right to attack people or destroy property, though. And Jakeatolla raises a good point - this cartoon was supposedly originally published months ago, so someone is definitely stirring the pot. When a radical element of a group/population seizes control, while the more moderate element sits idly by, it's bad news.
USA - You have been warned.
I say, when in doubt, go for the laugh.
There's humor in everything...............almost.
Right after 911, some congressman said that he would now be suspicious of anyone wearing a fan belt and a diaper on his head. Politically correct? Of course not. Funny? To we ignorant Americans, hell yes!
Yes. Months of nothing and then suddenly manufactured outrage on cue. It all smells like a carefully crafted photo op.