Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Bauglir]

Had to install Kali 2.0 since the Kali 1 repos are dead/dying apparently. I am disappoint.

[Bohandas]

Isn't it more that they support their right to their own religion and that these are more crazy people who have a religion... then people who have been transformed into crazy people by religion-based radiation?

Especially when America can be so hellbent on demonizing Islam at times. Such as the "Islamic Church near the twin towers" thing that hit the news... Something that should have never made the news, made it because racism.

Wow, it was worse than I thought actually:
http://time.com/3672921/charlie-hebdo-prophet-muhammad-muslim-cartoon-poll/

More than 4 in 10 French people believe Charlie Hebdo shouldn’t publish cartoons depicting the prophet Muhammad, given that many Muslims find the images offensive

I guess Europe really does have an immigration problem

[Bohandas]

Hmmm

Why is the scientific definition of insanity "Doing the same thing twice and expecting a different result" when ALL the scientific method is... is doing it a bazillion times to see if there are different results?

You're confusing scientific definitions with baseless meaningless platitudes

[Rolan7]

Any other religion is fair game, but not this one.  No matter that the magazine satirized Christianity as well.

It isn't about satirizing (though that doesn't help). Islam has a strong tradition of aniconism (something that was also present in Calvinism and Byzantine Iconoclasm), that used to extend to any depiction of a living creature. If you've ever wondered why geometry and calligraphy are so big in medieval Islamic art, it's because in much of the Islamic world (at least early on) depictions of humans and animals weren't acceptable. Strict aniconism is only practiced today by nutty groups like the Taliban, but never has it been acceptable to depict Allah in Islamic art, and only rarely or in Shiite art is the prophet Muhammad commonly depicted (typically with his face obscured).

This actually reminds me of an awesome movie that was made in the '70s about Muhammad and the beginnings of Islam, that never showed him on screen or speaking (the name of it escapes me). I think you see like one shot of his trousers, while he's holding this gnarly sword with two prongs at the end. The people around him speak directly into the camera when talking to him, with no reply, and you hear this recurring music in the background to know he's around.

Point is, there is more to it than being unable to take criticism, since the image itself may be considered a violation, regardless of intent.

Oh huh, I never knew about the aniconism tradition.  I knew they were against depictions of Muhammad, to avoid idolatry, in a way similar to Iconoclasm...  Didn't know that was (or evolved into?) a general tradition of avoiding depicting people.  Neat!

And that movie sounds interesting from a cinematography point of view.  Makes sense.  Probably this one I think:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Message_%281976_film%29
(Google sent me to the more general https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_in_film)

Anyway...  You're right that it isn't about criticism per se.  But it's not really better than that, and it's a rule that extremists are enforcing on people across the globe.  They're enforcing it on others, non-Muslims, in contradiction of our own traditions (freedom of speech... and icons all over the place).

It's not something to judge every Muslim by, particularly when they're denouncing the attacks.  But huge groups of people *supported* the attacks, and that should be recognized as a problem.

And liberals shouldn't blame the victims in a reflexive perversion of multiculturalism, basically.  Charlie Hebdo did nothing wrong.

[Bohandas]

Any other religion is fair game, but not this one.  No matter that the magazine satirized Christianity as well.

It isn't about satirizing (though that doesn't help). Islam has a strong tradition of aniconism (something that was also present in Calvinism and Byzantine Iconoclasm), that used to extend to any depiction of a living creature. If you've ever wondered why geometry and calligraphy are so big in medieval Islamic art, it's because in much of the Islamic world (at least early on) depictions of humans and animals weren't acceptable. Strict aniconism is only practiced today by nutty groups like the Taliban, but never has it been acceptable to depict Allah in Islamic art, and only rarely or in Shiite art is the prophet Muhammad commonly depicted (typically with his face obscured).

This actually reminds me of an awesome movie that was made in the '70s about Muhammad and the beginnings of Islam, that never showed him on screen or speaking (the name of it escapes me). I think you see like one shot of his trousers, while he's holding this gnarly sword with two prongs at the end. The people around him speak directly into the camera when talking to him, with no reply, and you hear this recurring music in the background to know he's around.

Point is, there is more to it than being unable to take criticism, since the image itself may be considered a violation, regardless of intent.

Oh huh, I never knew about the aniconism tradition.  I knew they were against depictions of Muhammad, to avoid idolatry, in a way similar to Iconoclasm...  Didn't know that was (or evolved into?) a general tradition of avoiding depicting people.

Well, like just about everything that dates back to before the 1700's or so it's utterly utterly stupid and therefore rightly ignored by most. people.

[WealthyRadish]

And that movie sounds interesting from a cinematography point of view.  Makes sense.  Probably this one I think:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Message_%281976_film%29
(Google sent me to the more general https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_in_film)

That's the one. And I guess it's Ali's trousers and sword. Interesting movie, worth a watch.

Personally I agree that being able to freely criticize aspects of a religion is important and extremists should not have their views enforced on others, but cartoons typically aren't a particularly sensitive or respectful way to do that criticism, even without the double whammy of the depiction itself being intrinsically offensive. I'm reminded of old cartoons of the pope, and other protestant/catholic cartoons. Free speech is restricted in most places against inciting hatred, and while the cartoons in that french magazine weren't Der Stürmer levels of offensive, I think the reaction does prove that they have that effect. The violence in response isn't justified, but I think the anger was.

[Neonivek]

Ohhh gawd the Full License Driving Test... To give everyone an idea of what it is like

Imagine there was a test with 100 questions and you had to get 80% of them correct.
-Now there are also 20 questions on that test that if you get wrong you instantly fail
-While your taking the test the teacher will sometimes yell out "THINK FAST! What is the answer to the question on the board" and if you do not answer in 5 seconds you fail.
-All while your teacher sits beside you glaring at you and telling you how much you suck.

I've had brutal tests before but none were so... unpleasant.

[Orange Wizard]

Ahahahahah. In NZ the full license test is basically just "drive around these backstreets for ten minutes without killing anyone and you can pass".

[Rose]

Here in india it's "Start the car, drive 10 meters, bring it to a stop"

The more advanced tests may even ask you to make a turn.

[Akura]

Had to install Kali 2.0 since the Kali 1 repos are dead/dying apparently. I am disappoint.

Well, Kali is the goddess of death, so...

[Teneb]

Ohhh gawd the Full License Driving Test... To give everyone an idea of what it is like

Imagine there was a test with 100 questions and you had to get 80% of them correct.
-Now there are also 20 questions on that test that if you get wrong you instantly fail
-While your taking the test the teacher will sometimes yell out "THINK FAST! What is the answer to the question on the board" and if you do not answer in 5 seconds you fail.
-All while your teacher sits beside you glaring at you and telling you how much you suck.

I've had brutal tests before but none were so... unpleasant.

That seems... needlessly sadistic.

Well, like just about everything that dates back to before the 1700's or so it's utterly utterly stupid and therefore rightly ignored by most. people.

No. Just... no. Seriously, no.

If I had the time I'd type out a wall of text about this, but a test awaits me.

[IcyTea31]

Here in india it's "Start the car, drive 10 meters, bring it to a stop"

The more advanced tests may even ask you to make a turn.

From what I hear, one can skip it by bribing the examiner...with the equivalent of 10 USD. Apparently, some people do just that because the test is too difficult for them.

[Graknorke]

The right to free speech intrinsically requires the right to offend.

[SirQuiamus]

No, it doesn't.

The right to freedom of expression is recognized as a human right under article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and recognized in international human rights law in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Article 19 of the ICCPR states that "everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference" and "everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice". Article 19 additionally states that the exercise of these rights carries "special duties and responsibilities" and may "therefore be subject to certain restrictions" when necessary "[f]or respect of the rights or reputation of others" or "[f]or the protection of national security or of public order (order public), or of public health or morals".[2][3]

All this means is that the government cannot restrict your right to call me a goat rapist, for example, and if you decide to do so, you have the responsibility to provide evidence for your claim. And if you can't provide any evidence, I have the right to sue your ass for unlawful libel.

[Graknorke]

You can offend people without lying, you know.