Print

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

[GreatJustice]

Have to say, freedom of speech exists to protect unpopular speech, of which this guy's would fall under.

On the other hand, maybe the Muslims wouldn't be so thin skinned if the US government wasn't regularly sending troops through, building bases, bombing them with drones and kill their people without repercussion.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Edit:  And MSH, it's perfectly understandable to dislike religious radicals.  However, your attitude suggests that it's to the point that you really want a fight over it... and not a personal one.  Everything you say reeks of "Let's get this party started."  That's not ok.  You can't drag the world into your personal convictions.  Go start fistfights with radical muslims on the street if you want.  Nobody's going to stop you.  Advocating the escalation of an international slug-fest... not going to stand for that one.

When wanting to maintain liberty is seen as equivalent to escalating an international slug-fest, I just don't know what to say.

[kaijyuu]

I'm quite certain Salmon isn't advocating not "maintaining liberty" or any other such buzz phrase, mr well poisoner, but rather that the methods you're advocating won't be helpful and/or would have too dire of consequences.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

What methods? What are you even talking about? I said I wanted to maintain freedom of speech and not prosecute the filmmaker. That is my method. Quit ascribing intent to me that I don't have.

[Gantolandon]

Well if you walk into a bar with the intent to insult everyone in it, it doesn't matter how politely (or not) you express yourself.  I don't think politeness really comes into play at all unless you're dealing with hypersensitive folk. And I guess we are, in this situation...

Well, this this movie's author's intent seems clear, given that he didn't even bother to tell his actors what they are really taking part of.

Touche. But it's not wholly unexpected that people panic, so the person inciting them is still far more at fault than those who are doing the trampling.

It is also expected that fundamentalist Muslims lose their shit when someone insults Muhammad. I would be surprised if they didn't.

And as a pedantic and irrelevant side note, some of us here are cock suckers and enjoy the activity greatly It's a bit homophobic of an insult on the same level as "gay," though I do realize you didn't mean it that way (so I don't take offense or anything).

Ah, sorry for that - I tried to find an example of a frequently used insult that could annoy an average drunk bar patron and this is what I came with. It didn't help that English has a lot of sexual-related slurs.

When wanting to maintain liberty is seen as equivalent to escalating an international slug-fest, I just don't know what to say.

Liberty isn't a value in itself. Free speech means that unpopular (or unaccepted by the people in power) opinions can be voiced because they may be valuable. It has nothing to do with being able to freely insult and provoke anyone without consequences.

[kaijyuu]

What methods? What are you even talking about? I said I wanted to maintain freedom of speech and not prosecute the filmmaker. That is my method. Quit ascribing intent to me that I don't have.

Mm, you're right, I retract my statement then. Salmon will have to defend his own arguments.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Liberty isn't a value in itself.

* MetalSlimeHunt disagrees

The recognition of liberty as a core value is what lead to the modern world. The American and French Revolutions were about obtaining liberty, and all else follows.

Free speech means that unpopular (or unaccepted by the people in power) opinions can be voiced because they may be valuable. It has nothing to do with being able to freely insult and provoke anyone without consequences.

Those things overlap, especially when you're dealing with groups like Islamists who will react with homicidal intent to both things like this film and simple political cartoons. Any criticism of Islam results in violence from these extremists. "Provoke", to them, is anything other than submitting to Islam.

[Leafsnail]

But like I said... there's a difference between criticism and provocation.

Is there anything to suggest that the guy was being intentionally provocative?  I thought he was just a dumb guy with dumb views on Muslims, and created the film to air these views.  If someone else hadn't gotten ahold of he film and shown it in Arabic it would never have even provoked anyone.  In any case, trying to legally decide what's "trolling" and what's genuine criticism seems extremely dangerous considering that when people react hypersensitively there isn't really much difference between the two (my biggest concern is that any criticism of religion would get thrown under this label).

On a forum I'm fine with the mods kicking out people to help establish the kind of community they want.  Those people can always go elsewhere to somewhere they won't bother me.  This is not true of countries - the country is the only place these people have, so their rights and views as human beings have to be respected.  I don't mind that Free Republic would ban me for being left wing (to them that is essentially "trolling") but if my country would take legal action against me for the same then that would be a serious problem.

[SalmonGod]

What methods? What are you even talking about? I said I wanted to maintain freedom of speech and not prosecute the filmmaker. That is my method. Quit ascribing intent to me that I don't have.

The way you advocate it reads to me like "To hell with the consequences.  Bring them on.  Let's settle this once and for all."

Liberty isn't a value in itself.

* MetalSlimeHunt disagrees

The recognition of liberty as a core value is what lead to the modern world. The American and French Revolutions were about obtaining liberty, and all else follows.

Ok... please define liberty, without copy/pasting from a dictionary.

But like I said... there's a difference between criticism and provocation.

Is there anything to suggest that the guy was being intentionally provocative?  I thought he was just a dumb guy with dumb views on Muslims, and created the film to air these views.  If someone else hadn't gotten ahold of he film and shown it in Arabic it would never have even provoked anyone.  In any case, trying to legally decide what's "trolling" and what's genuine criticism seems extremely dangerous considering that when people react hypersensitively there isn't really much difference between the two (my biggest concern is that any criticism of religion would get thrown under this label).

On a forum I'm fine with the mods kicking out people to help establish the kind of community they want.  Those people can always go elsewhere to somewhere they won't bother me.  This is not true of countries - the country is the only place these people have, so their rights and views as human beings have to be respected.  I don't mind that Free Republic would ban me for being left wing (to them that is essentially "trolling") but if my country would take legal action against me for the same then that would be a serious problem.

This seems to me like a lot of effort to go through just to express some dumb views, especially when I thought it had been pointed out that the film maker was the one who had it translated to Arabic.

I agree with you that it's a slippery situation to deal with.  I'm just saying that it's ridiculous to claim the guy shouldn't be held responsible in some fashion.  Individual rights do have to be respected, but that doesn't necessarily mean an individuals rights and views take priority over every else who has to deal with the consequences of a massive disruption in social harmony.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

What methods? What are you even talking about? I said I wanted to maintain freedom of speech and not prosecute the filmmaker. That is my method. Quit ascribing intent to me that I don't have.

The way you advocate it reads to me like "To hell with the consequences.  Bring them on.  Let's settle this once and for all."

That's on you, man. I'm simply not going to bend to the wishes of extremists. That's it.

Ok... please define liberty, without copy/pasting from a dictionary.

Liberty is the state of being free from the oppression and control of other human beings, generally those who have a disproportionate amount of power.

[Leafsnail]

Oh right, translation was on his Youtube channel, fair enough.  I agree that it's a lot of effort to go through to express dumb views, but it's also a lot of effort to go through just to troll for the hell of it.  Some people just feel that they're right and prevailing opinion is wrong, and are prepared to go to a lot of effort to tell everyone else.

[Karnewarrior]

If they want to protect the reputation of a warmongering child molester as the prophet of Allah?

MSH, if you were wondering why everyone started hearing your opinions as such vitrolic hate-filled speeches, this is why. This sentance right here colored all the rest of your posts from then on. Not so much the material in the posts themselves, but the overall tone.

Calling Muhammad a "warmongering child molester" is false. While he did marry a child, IIRC he never slept with her until she wasn't a child anymore and it was closer to an adoption anyway, since back then they didn't have orphanages and social services. It's like the polygamy thing; it's not telling you to go out and marry sixteen women for no raisin, but it's a means of defense against the mistreatment of widows, who had no protection.

Please don't confuse the views of Muhammad himself with the views of the wackjobs causing this ruckus. I'm sure 99% of the people in the middle east just wish this would all die away. There are no more and no fewer Muslim Extreme Fundamentalists than there are Extreme Fundamentalist Christians.

I'd also like to point out that this conversation as a whole is getting flame-warry. Let's keep it in a civil tone, lots of pleases and thank yous. Basically, everyone calm your man-tits.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Muhammad a "warmongering child molester" is false. While he did marry a child, IIRC he never slept with her until she wasn't a child anymore and it was closer to an adoption anyway, since back then they didn't have orphanages and social services. It's like the polygamy thing; it's not telling you to go out and marry sixteen women for no raisin, but it's a means of defense against the mistreatment of widows, who had no protection.

As I recall he married her when she was 6 and slept with her when she was 9, so...no, still a child molester. I stand by my point, except it wasn't a point, I was explicitly condoning allowing Muslims to practice their religion freely even though I disapprove of it as I disapprove of all religion.

I don't care about the context of the time because Islamists don't care about the context of the time either. They want Islam to stand as it was originally created forever and ever. It isn't like with political leaders where you can excuse their actions due to the times because they were left with those times. Religious figures like Muhammad and Jesus were not left with the times and people try to keep them relevant to the world many centuries later and get angry whenever they are rightfully criticized.

Please don't confuse the views of Muhammad himself with the views of the wackjobs causing this ruckus. I'm sure 99% of the people in the middle east just wish this would all die away. There are no more and no fewer Muslim Extreme Fundamentalists than there are Extreme Fundamentalist Christians.

Mohammed has kind of been dead for 1400 years, so his views on anything are fairly irrelevant.

The number of extremists is another thing altogether. There are definitely more extremist Muslims than extremist Christians, but this has nothing to do with Islam and Christianity, this has to do with Europe and North America becoming the epicenter of global technological and social development following the Industrial Revolution.

[MaximumZero]

The "child-bride" was Aisha. She was six when she was betrothed to Muhammad, and nine when he took her as a wife, according to the translation of the Qu'ran I was reading last night.

[Frumple]

I... just kinda' checking, but y'all do realize that was pretty much right in line with the cultural norms of the time, right? Many, perhaps even most, marriages in that time period occurred in such a manner to render the groom a child molester by today's standards. I'm not saying it's right, and I certainly disagree with it in today's context, but singling the guy out for that seems a bit out of place. You'd have condemn entire swaths of human history by that measure, from what I understand.