| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - "Free" to shout "FIRE" in crowded theatres?
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


"Free" to shout "FIRE" in crowded theatres?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123>
Author
Guest View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guest Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: "Free" to shout "FIRE" in crowded theatres?
    Posted: 26 Sep 2012 at 00:08
Why not? We have the freedom to burn Korans and make movies insulting its prophet. Surely we should have the freedom to all carry guns and equal rights to smoke without paying discriminatory taxes. Or why not have the freedom to picket service men funerals and hurl profanities at the presidential candidate in public---or even to exhibit gay sex in public. 
 
No wonder people in the Near East don't understand or even fail to recognize the great ideals we value so much in our system. Why idealize and yearn for more of what is actually so harmful?
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 30 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2146
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Sep 2012 at 03:44
Originally posted by charles brough charles brough wrote:

Why not? We have the freedom to burn Korans and make movies insulting its prophet. Surely we should have the freedom to all carry guns and equal rights to smoke without paying discriminatory taxes. Or why not have the freedom to picket service men funerals and hurl profanities at the presidential candidate in public---or even to exhibit gay sex in public. 
 
No wonder people in the Near East don't understand or even fail to recognize the great ideals we value so much in our system. Why idealize and yearn for more of what is actually so harmful?
 
You are correct of course that there are limits on freedom, from denying the holocast in Europe to driving through a stop sign in Montana. There will always be some actions that have been deemed to be important enough to the group that individual rights must take a second place.
 
What is rather pathetic about the recent rage in the Middle East is that it stems from the challenge to a system of magical thinking that is desired, but cannot be easily supported, and is therefore vulnerable. Part of it also likely stems from the raw nerve of western domination and exploitation of the region in recent times. Both of these are abstractions that either have little real value, or can be changed by much more effective means, it the will is there.
Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 08 Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 5000
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Sep 2012 at 04:28
Originally posted by Captain Vancouver Captain Vancouver wrote:

Originally posted by charles brough charles brough wrote:

Why not? We have the freedom to burn Korans and make movies insulting its prophet. Surely we should have the freedom to all carry guns and equal rights to smoke without paying discriminatory taxes. Or why not have the freedom to picket service men funerals and hurl profanities at the presidential candidate in public---or even to exhibit gay sex in public. 
 
No wonder people in the Near East don't understand or even fail to recognize the great ideals we value so much in our system. Why idealize and yearn for more of what is actually so harmful?
 
You are correct of course that there are limits on freedom, from denying the holocast in Europe to driving through a stop sign in Montana. There will always be some actions that have been deemed to be important enough to the group that individual rights must take a second place.
 
Then we have a conundrum. If it is legal for one country to jail people for basically life if they question (not deny) the holocaust who are we to criticise Pakistan for jailing or executing blasphemers? Especially if we know blasphamy is much harmful to that (Pakistani that is which has a literacy rate of 40%) society than anti-semitism. 
 
 
Originally posted by Captain Vancouver Captain Vancouver wrote:

What is rather pathetic about the recent rage in the Middle East is that it stems from the challenge to a system of magical thinking that is desired, but cannot be easily supported, and is therefore vulnerable. Part of it also likely stems from the raw nerve of western domination and exploitation of the region in recent times. Both of these are abstractions that either have little real value, or can be changed by much more effective means, it the will is there.
 
There is nothing pathetic about the rage in the middle east as long as it is peaceful and 90% of demonstrations were peaceful. What is pathetic is to complain about that rage which should be covered under "freedom of expression". Insults depend on the receiver's perception of it not the sender's meaning. If you insult a person whether wittingly (as in this case) or unwittingly it is not for you to determine if you did insult him or not. It is up to him.
 
People have just as much right to rage as the film makers to make the film. Denying People the right to be enraged is more dangerous than denying an individual's right to insult. Rage builds up and when it does it is not pretty.
 
Al-Jassas 


Edited by Al Jassas - 26 Sep 2012 at 04:29
Back to Top
fantasus View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 08 May 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 1943
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote fantasus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Sep 2012 at 06:34
From a different, to a far degree opposite point of view:
A "rage", even if it is not "illegal", seems to be not a very dignified response to anything and raging persons do not deserve "special rights". I find rage in public a bit childsh (that is not to deny it is human to be angry).
Much more important: I see no justification whatsoever "angry people" as such - because they are angry - should be given special authority over laws for all the world ( a worldwide "ban" on certain expressions)- few things appear more absurd, even harmful. Either it end up being some religion given special priviliged status globally, since what this religion seems as holy are decreed holy for everyone. Or alternatively it ends up in chaos, since every sectarian group can dictate taboos for the rest of mankind.
Then there is not only "rage", but a lot of violence.
So my conclusion, so far:The US, and European and other nations, should reject any demands, or any proposals were threat of violence are part of it. Thwey should even reject to consider it ore negotiate anything under such conditions. They should think of discussing any ideas by "muslim" countries if they are 1:voluntary. 2:not violating their own principles of society. 3: If it is part of a greater "package", were the opposite part agree to some common principles. The ideas of "universal" legal protection of religion as they appear now - put forward by say iIan or Pakistan or other countries should be deemed unacceptable. 
Back to Top
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 30 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2146
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Sep 2012 at 11:28
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

Originally posted by Captain Vancouver Captain Vancouver wrote:

Originally posted by charles brough charles brough wrote:

Why not? We have the freedom to burn Korans and make movies insulting its prophet. Surely we should have the freedom to all carry guns and equal rights to smoke without paying discriminatory taxes. Or why not have the freedom to picket service men funerals and hurl profanities at the presidential candidate in public---or even to exhibit gay sex in public. 
 
No wonder people in the Near East don't understand or even fail to recognize the great ideals we value so much in our system. Why idealize and yearn for more of what is actually so harmful?
 
You are correct of course that there are limits on freedom, from denying the holocast in Europe to driving through a stop sign in Montana. There will always be some actions that have been deemed to be important enough to the group that individual rights must take a second place.
 
Then we have a conundrum. If it is legal for one country to jail people for basically life if they question (not deny) the holocaust who are we to criticise Pakistan for jailing or executing blasphemers? Especially if we know blasphamy is much harmful to that (Pakistani that is which has a literacy rate of 40%) society than anti-semitism. 
 
I agree that the holocaust law is over the top; it was given simply as an example of what one community considers to be the necessity of group rights over individual rights. One can make the argument however that at least it is grounded in reality. The experience of Jews in Europe in the earlier part of the 20th century was such that a reaction, while perhaps ill thought out in this case, is understandable.
 
Those raging in the streets today, and suggesting the curtailment of individual rights to make films, are operating on another level, a rather large step further removed from reality. They believe in a certain kind of magic, and not only is this accepted without basis, but those that question or mock the belief in even quite modest ways can become the target of murderous rage.
 
Imagine an analogy based on scientific belief. Some believe the Higgs Boson particle has been found. Some may disagree. A U Tube video is produced mocking the belief of the former. People take to the steets in London, New York, and other cities, rioting and overturning cars.
 
Absurd? Of course it is, but this isn't about rational thought. Freud would have summed it up quite quickly. The rioters are acting out their fears and insecurities. They need religious belief for their sense of well being, and don't see a ready replacement for it, yet are aware at a deeper level that there is actually scant evidence for it. What is felt to be important, yet vulnerable, generates a strong defense, one that can even get irrational. Look at it this way, if one was absoluely sure of their belief, it wouldn't matter what anyone else thought. If they disagreed, or were even mocking in their disagreement, it would be their mistake, and their ignorance, would it not? Certainly nothing to worry about.
 
 
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

Originally posted by Captain Vancouver Captain Vancouver wrote:

What is rather pathetic about the recent rage in the Middle East is that it stems from the challenge to a system of magical thinking that is desired, but cannot be easily supported, and is therefore vulnerable. Part of it also likely stems from the raw nerve of western domination and exploitation of the region in recent times. Both of these are abstractions that either have little real value, or can be changed by much more effective means, it the will is there.
 
There is nothing pathetic about the rage in the middle east as long as it is peaceful and 90% of demonstrations were peaceful. What is pathetic is to complain about that rage which should be covered under "freedom of expression". Insults depend on the receiver's perception of it not the sender's meaning. If you insult a person whether wittingly (as in this case) or unwittingly it is not for you to determine if you did insult him or not. It is up to him.
 
People have just as much right to rage as the film makers to make the film. Denying People the right to be enraged is more dangerous than denying an individual's right to insult. Rage builds up and when it does it is not pretty.
 
Al-Jassas 
 
Yes, people have a right to feel angry. They do not have a right to act out that anger in destructive ways. That's simply part of the maturation process. Furthermore, if one is feeling rage, it is really then one's responsibility to try and figure out why this is so. Anger and rage are often secondary emotions to some other primary reaction, such as fear. It is usually much more productive to try and understand what is really going on emotionally, and then deal with that, rather than discuss the concept of insults, and philosophical and mystic beliefs. In that sense, I stand by my use of the term "pathetic" to describe (a small minority) that are acting out in extreme fashion, with little intellectual input on their part into the real dynamics of the situation.


Edited by Captain Vancouver - 26 Sep 2012 at 11:30
Back to Top
Zagros View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
Kaveh ye Ahangar

Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Location: MidX,Engelistan
Status: Offline
Points: 12490
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Zagros Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Sep 2012 at 05:34
How can you expect a bunch of illiterate apes to be dignified?  They are angry with the west so they go around trashing their own towns?  Equally, the west cannot go bleeting about the freedom of speech when it jails people for mere words itself.
"There was glory in pissing, Corabb decided as he watched the stream curve out and make that familiar but unique sound as it hit the ground." So true.
Back to Top
Parnell View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 04 Apr 2007
Location: Barcelona
Status: Offline
Points: 3225
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Parnell Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Sep 2012 at 05:47
Freedom of speech is the right to be wrong, not to do wrong. You've the right to have extremely gay sex if you wish, but don't inherently have a right to do so in the main public square of your town (Basic rules of social decorum will apply) If you regard this kind of thing as inherently wrong, then you clearly the right to be (And do) wrong, but with consenting adults.

Similarily people should be free to deny the holocaust, that kind of thoughtcrime is an abomination in itself and ruins our moral high ground on these matters.

In short, I think the people who decided to get offended by the Islamic incident are loonbags, cynical opportunists, or completely idiotic. (There is a political and economic industry devoted to feeling, receiving and communicating their 'offense' at every opportunity and they are slowly MURDERING the open society)
http://xkcd.com/15/



Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it. ~George Bernard Shaw
Back to Top
fantasus View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 08 May 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 1943
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote fantasus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Sep 2012 at 05:47
Originally posted by Zagros Zagros wrote:

How can you expect a bunch of illiterate apes to be dignified?  They are angry with the west so they go around trashing their own towns?  Equally, the west cannot go bleeting about the freedom of speech when it jails people for mere words itself.
"The west" does not "jail2 anybody, if not for other reasons then because it is not any political entity or state. Some "western" states may jail persons were other states does not.
And in my opinion some acts are words, but criminal acts anyway. If You express an intention to kill somebody then it is not justified by "freedom of expression". To offeran award to kill a person is an attempt to kill that person, not? 
Back to Top
Zagros View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
Kaveh ye Ahangar

Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Location: MidX,Engelistan
Status: Offline
Points: 12490
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Zagros Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Sep 2012 at 05:51
The west is a bloc and acts as such on the international stage.
"There was glory in pissing, Corabb decided as he watched the stream curve out and make that familiar but unique sound as it hit the ground." So true.
Back to Top
Zagros View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
Kaveh ye Ahangar

Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Location: MidX,Engelistan
Status: Offline
Points: 12490
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Zagros Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Sep 2012 at 05:55
Originally posted by Parnell Parnell wrote:

Freedom of speech is the right to be wrong, not to do wrong. You've the right to have extremely gay sex if you wish, but don't inherently have a right to do so in the main public square of your town (Basic rules of social decorum will apply) If you regard this kind of thing as inherently wrong, then you clearly the right to be (And do) wrong, but with consenting adults.

Similarily people should be free to deny the holocaust, that kind of thoughtcrime is an abomination in itself and ruins our moral high ground on these matters.

In short, I think the people who decided to get offended by the Islamic incident are loonbags, cynical opportunists, or completely idiotic. (There is a political and economic industry devoted to feeling, receiving and communicating their 'offense' at every opportunity and they are slowly MURDERING the open society)


Absolutely agree.
"There was glory in pissing, Corabb decided as he watched the stream curve out and make that familiar but unique sound as it hit the ground." So true.
Back to Top
Guest View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guest Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Sep 2012 at 06:33
Originally posted by Parnell Parnell wrote:

Freedom of speech is the right to be wrong, not to do wrong. You've the right to have extremely gay sex if you wish, but don't inherently have a right to do so in the main public square of your town (Basic rules of social decorum will apply) If you regard this kind of thing as inherently wrong, then you clearly the right to be (And do) wrong, but with consenting adults.

Similarily people should be free to deny the holocaust, that kind of thoughtcrime is an abomination in itself and ruins our moral high ground on these matters.

In short, I think the people who decided to get offended by the Islamic incident are loonbags, cynical opportunists, or completely idiotic. (There is a political and economic industry devoted to feeling, receiving and communicating their 'offense' at every opportunity and they are slowly MURDERING the open society)
 
Well said Parnell - I agree.
Back to Top
fantasus View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 08 May 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 1943
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote fantasus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Sep 2012 at 18:40
Originally posted by Zagros Zagros wrote:

The west is a bloc and acts as such on the international stage.
Not if we discuss laws. There are differences, and more than in  the detail.
Back to Top
Styrbiorn View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 Aug 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 3602
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Styrbiorn Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Sep 2012 at 18:54
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:


Then we have a conundrum. If it is legal for one country to jail people for basically life if they question (not deny) the holocaust who are we to criticise Pakistan for jailing or executing blasphemers? Especially if we know blasphamy is much harmful to that (Pakistani that is which has a literacy rate of 40%) society than anti-semitism. 
 
 
Al-Jassas 
 
Good point but it's not a conundrum; the holocaust-denial laws are just as heavily criticised. They are however limited to a select few states, they are not used in all of "Europe" as someone put it.< id="_npwlo" ="applicationpwlo" height="0">
Back to Top
Zagros View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
Kaveh ye Ahangar

Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Location: MidX,Engelistan
Status: Offline
Points: 12490
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Zagros Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Sep 2012 at 04:42
Yes but even the slightest review of the holocaust (easiest example to think of) - however academic detached from extremism and ill intent - undoubtedly ends with the "perpetrator" being ostracised and  having his or her career completely ruined by the press with the full backing of the establishment, never mind the personal threats and other financial consequences.

Anyway, one can justify his perspective all he likes but that won't change the perception of hypocrisy the other side have which owes itself to the suppression of freedom of speech when it comes to other things that are branded hateful or inciting (which they are in the case of extremists and their slogans during soldiers' funeral processions) - so what are the Muhammad cartoons if not hateful and inciting?

Edited by Zagros - 28 Sep 2012 at 04:45
"There was glory in pissing, Corabb decided as he watched the stream curve out and make that familiar but unique sound as it hit the ground." So true.
Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 08 Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 5000
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Sep 2012 at 05:08
Originally posted by Styrbiorn Styrbiorn wrote:

Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:


Then we have a conundrum. If it is legal for one country to jail people for basically life if they question (not deny) the holocaust who are we to criticise Pakistan for jailing or executing blasphemers? Especially if we know blasphamy is much harmful to that (Pakistani that is which has a literacy rate of 40%) society than anti-semitism. 
 
 
Al-Jassas 
 
Good point but it's not a conundrum; the holocaust-denial laws are just as heavily criticised. They are however limited to a select few states, they are not used in all of "Europe" as someone put it.< id="_npwlo" ="applicationpwlo" height="0">
 
To make everything clear, my point above was not about the holocaust or blasphamy. It is about people judging other countries while themselves defending their own wrong approach.
 
Unlike the US where only libel has consequences, in France (and europe in general) people are quite frank about supporting holocaust denial laws, defending "free speech" and criticising people for being mad when that "free speech" insults them.
 
This is the conundrum I am talking about. Either you follow a clear cut path of supporting freedom for all or acknowledge (and more importantly defend) the right of people not bestowed the benefits of holocaust (and now Armenian massacres) denial laws to be mad and enact their own anti-freedom of speech laws.
 
Al-Jassas
Back to Top
Styrbiorn View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 Aug 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 3602
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Styrbiorn Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Sep 2012 at 05:15
Originally posted by Zagros Zagros wrote:

Yes but even the slightest review of the holocaust (easiest example to think of) - however academic detached from extremism and ill intent - undoubtedly ends with the "perpetrator" being ostracised and  having his or her career completely ruined by the press with the full backing of the establishment, never mind the personal threats and other financial consequences.
Do you have an example of that, or merely speculating? Out of curiousity, because I find it strange.

Quote Anyway, one can justify his perspective all he likes but that won't change the perception of hypocrisy the other side have which owes itself to the suppression of freedom of speech when it comes to other things that are branded hateful or inciting (which they are in the case of extremists and their slogans during soldiers' funeral processions) - so what are the Muhammad cartoons if not hateful and inciting?
 
The only thing that is illegal here when it comes to insults is for a native Swede to insult a foreigner using racist slur (I do find even that law ridiculous). I do believe there is a fundamental difference between that and some people forbidding or wanting to forbid everyone else in every other country to say something that they happen to find insulting. I'm not sure which cartoons you are referring to so it's difficult to comment.
< id="_npwlo" ="applicationpwlo" height="0">

Back to Top
fantasus View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 08 May 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 1943
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote fantasus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Sep 2012 at 17:56

That the big issue, what is critizised, is only "muslim anger" or "rage" is only part of the truth.

It is not so much the "angry feelings" as the "angry acts" - violence, and the threats. Then also any idea gvernment persons or other authorities of muslim observance has any inherent right to make laws for the rest of the planet or demands of punishment or non-punishment. The later is about the "internal ssystem" of each country.
Personally I think european states should not reject the possibillity of such interference under all circumstances, but better see it as negotiable under very strict cconditions.
1:It goes both ways. It is not one-sided demands from one country or religious group to another.
2: There is a rigth to say "no" or veto such interference. In particular if demands violate constitutions or basic laws.
3:Those involved defines what they want from other parties. Any "offer" by muslim clerics that, say Jesus or other "holy persons" are "protected" does not fulfill that condition, because who says the rest want such?
I think on the other hand all those demands we have seen so far should be flatly rejected by europeans and US, but then of course I don´t have the power.
 
Back to Top
Guest View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guest Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Sep 2012 at 18:47
Originally posted by Zagros Zagros wrote:

................. - so what are the Muhammad cartoons if not hateful and inciting?
 
Old friend - you are bewildered Smile
The original cartoons were not hateful - and were never meant as such.
Inciting ? - not really - but they became inciting after some Imams used them for their own purpose and adding more cartoons to the folder they promoted on their tour round the middle east, with one purpose only - to stir up trouble.
More than 150 people were killed in the riots caused by their actions - that is the only crime comitted.
 
Read the short version of the events here in my dialog with Mira in 2006.
 
- or if you care to, the long and full version: http://www.buch-rasmussen.dk/cartoons/
 
The same page as a pdf-file: PDF version
 
 
 
~ North
 
 
 
 
 


Edited by Northman - 28 Sep 2012 at 18:50
Back to Top
Guest View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guest Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28 Sep 2012 at 20:48
I am referring to the shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre scenario to the Danish cartoons issue. I find it silly to compare the reaction of people stampeding in a crowded theatre upon being told there is a fire, to extremists killing innocent people because a totally different set of people made fun of their creation myth.

One set of people are reacting to a very sudden threat out of fear of their lives, the other group are engaging in the premeditated murder of innocents. I just don't find it possible to liken the two scenarios.

In the case of the person shouting in the theatre, they are entirely to blame. Because the people who stampede can hardly be expected to do otherwise in fear of their lives. The people who went on a rampage after the Danish cartoons could reasonably have been expected to desist from violence and destruction, but consciously chose not to do so. So the blame for that violence and destruction rests squarely with the people who perpetrated it.


Edited by Constantine XI - 28 Sep 2012 at 20:52
Back to Top
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 30 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2146
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 Sep 2012 at 03:16
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

Originally posted by Styrbiorn Styrbiorn wrote:

Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:


Then we have a conundrum. If it is legal for one country to jail people for basically life if they question (not deny) the holocaust who are we to criticise Pakistan for jailing or executing blasphemers? Especially if we know blasphamy is much harmful to that (Pakistani that is which has a literacy rate of 40%) society than anti-semitism. 
 
 
Al-Jassas 
 
Good point but it's not a conundrum; the holocaust-denial laws are just as heavily criticised. They are however limited to a select few states, they are not used in all of "Europe" as someone put it.< id="_npwlo" ="applicationpwlo" height="0">
 
To make everything clear, my point above was not about the holocaust or blasphamy. It is about people judging other countries while themselves defending their own wrong approach.
 
Unlike the US where only libel has consequences, in France (and europe in general) people are quite frank about supporting holocaust denial laws, defending "free speech" and criticising people for being mad when that "free speech" insults them.
 
It is not really the same thing though AJ. The holocaust laws are there not simply because some might feel "insulted" by transgressors, but because (rightly or wrongly) it is thought that this sort of revision of history may have grave consequences for the future. It is rooted in the idea of group rights overriding individual rights, at certain logically defined points.
 
This is a long way from insisting on death to those that make fun of a  certain type of philosophical notion. This is a reaction based in extreme ignorance of: (1) the fact that we are talking about a myth, or at least a philosophical theory at best (2) the world is a diverse place, and others have their own beliefs, ones which may not coincide with one's own (3) the probability that this sort of extreme violence stems from deeper issues, such as the fear that one may be quite wrong about the world, or the fear that others are dominating and threatening one's well being.
 
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

 
This is the conundrum I am talking about. Either you follow a clear cut path of supporting freedom for all or acknowledge (and more importantly defend) the right of people not bestowed the benefits of holocaust (and now Armenian massacres) denial laws to be mad and enact their own anti-freedom of speech laws.
 
Al-Jassas
All countries can (and do) limit free speech to some degree, but limitations should be based on demonstrated logical need. Basing them on religious hubris or political self-interest is a slippery slope.
Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 08 Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 5000
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 Sep 2012 at 06:25
Originally posted by Captain Vancouver Captain Vancouver wrote:

 
 
It is not really the same thing though AJ. The holocaust laws are there not simply because some might feel "insulted" by transgressors, but because (rightly or wrongly) it is thought that this sort of revision of history may have grave consequences for the future. It is rooted in the idea of group rights overriding individual rights, at certain logically defined points.
 
Here is the thing. Hardcore nazis are proud of the holocaust, they don't deny it. Plus as a historical fact no different than Kaiser Wilhelm II was once ruler of Germany and supported by overwhelming evidence (all "deniers" including Irving and others acknowledge the holocaust too) any one who callange it would be no different than anyone challanging that the earth is round.
 
To say that by not protecting the holocaust people might forget it or do it again is ludicrous. If the population wants to committ genocide it will do so holocaust or not. France almost committed one in Algeria when it imprisoned 25% of the population is consentration camps. Eli Wiesel, the holocaust survivor and advocate for these laws have been on the record supporting similar measures against the Palestinians. The leader of the gang which tried to stop the Cologne mosque along with the neo-Nazis was a holocaust survivor. 
 
 
 
Originally posted by Captain Vancouver Captain Vancouver wrote:

This is a long way from insisting on death to those that make fun of a  certain type of philosophical notion. This is a reaction based in extreme ignorance of: (1) the fact that we are talking about a myth, or at least a philosophical theory at best (2) the world is a diverse place, and others have their own beliefs, ones which may not coincide with one's own (3) the probability that this sort of extreme violence stems from deeper issues, such as the fear that one may be quite wrong about the world, or the fear that others are dominating and threatening one's well being.
 
Not it is not.
 
Again, you use your yard stick to measure other people's lawns. It doesn't matter if the sacred thing was a fact or not, what matter's is how do people see it.
 

 

Originally posted by Captain Vancouver Captain Vancouver wrote:

All countries can (and do) limit free speech to some degree, but limitations should be based on demonstrated logical need. Basing them on religious hubris or political self-interest is a slippery slope.
 
And how would you define those "logical needs". There is no law in the world no matter how pizzar it is without a logic. In the case of blasphamy it is easy. Tens of millions of illiterate people who will threaten the peace of the country if such a thing is allowed regardless of how stupid the law might be.
 
Al-Jassas
Back to Top
Omar al Hashim View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master


Joined: 05 Jan 2006
Location: Bush Capital
Status: Offline
Points: 7823
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Omar al Hashim Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 Sep 2012 at 12:35
For the narrow issue of the movie that was made, I do not think there is anything to protest about. The US Government has said and done exactly the right things, and all people in responsiblity have condemned the film. There is no point getting worked up about one random nutjob.
This is quite unlike the Cartoon contraversy, because then the Danish government and other people in positions of power in Europe took reprehensable positions, and what they did was far more insulting and threatening than the actual cartoons. In other words, it was the racism displayed by the Danish authorities that was the real problem.
 
However, if anyone thinks the the movie is the cause of the protests they are sadly mistaken. The cause are repeated invasions, bombing, diplomatic and economic attack, corrupt governments, unsafe society a sense of powerlessness, low self esteem, and a lack of identity. The movie is just a spark in an already very flammable composition.
 
I'm also yet again disappointed at the utter hypocracy and racism of westerners who are so easily offended with some really rather minor protests. Freedom of speech works both ways, if one can make a video then the other can protest about it. Deal with it. You can't have you cake and eat it too. Even intelligent people in this thread seem to think that Freedom of Speech is a weapon that westerners can use to strip away the right of coloured people, to make them be like you. It's so disgusting and they're so blind to the fact they are doing it, so deeply indoctrinated into the white is right camp that they can't even see that they're in it.
Back to Top
fantasus View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 08 May 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 1943
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote fantasus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 Sep 2012 at 19:23
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

 
 
I'm also yet again disappointed at the utter hypocracy and racism of westerners who are so easily offended with some really rather minor protests. Freedom of speech works both ways, if one can make a video then the other can protest about it. Deal with it. You can't have you cake and eat it too. Even intelligent people in this thread seem to think that Freedom of Speech is a weapon that westerners can use to strip away the right of coloured people, to make them be like you. It's so disgusting and they're so blind to the fact they are doing it, so deeply indoctrinated into the white is right camp that they can't even see that they're in it.
Protests, demonstrations, etcetera. There is nothing wrong with it as such. It depends upon what kind of protests. Here too much of the muslim was clearly violent in character, and I even suspect some part of the seemingly "peaceful" protesters were not that separated from the violent part. So others can protest - non-violent, they can go to court as some has done (that is not a guarantee the law is on their side of course).
It is noty all about the "rights of coloured peoples" or "stripping away" such rights to "make them like you" (uncollored?)
Whatever general rights people should have, "colours" should be irrellevant, and we should not assume any differenes betrween "coloured" and "uncoloured" except - colour or some minor genetic ones. So the two groups are in a sense "like" each other - or they differ internally, from person to person. Faith, ideology, including agnosticism/atheism, is an entirely different matter.
I find it disappointing many people, not only muslims, has such understanding of the violent character of the protests, or alternative theyu deny that. Those who if not accept, then "understand" such violence- their attitude is rather disgusting I find.
About those authorities, religious or political, that "demand" univeral laws or at least that other countries should punish "offenders" of religious feelings: 1: It is easy to see such steps as a way to "usurp power". If anybody outside Europe or ecen a particular european country demand influrence upon court decision or new laws, then whith what justification? Who is assumed to be the "victim"?
Is it "god and the prophet"?
If it is their own populations those people can avoid the offending expressions, films, books, cartoons or whatever, if they will. Those living in european countries probably wants to be there, from some reasons, and should not involve authoritie from outside, not at least without very good reasons and urgency.
Back to Top
Omar al Hashim View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master


Joined: 05 Jan 2006
Location: Bush Capital
Status: Offline
Points: 7823
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Omar al Hashim Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 Sep 2012 at 21:33

Violence has either been massively overblown or occured in countries where protests always turn violent.

Because violence is something indisuptably undesirable it is used to discredit and distract from the argument and belittle the protesters. Which only pisses the protesters off more to ensure that this occurs next time. It's used as an excuse for pre-existing racism. Some protest somewhere will always turn violent, and someone will always be there to ensure it.
 
Think of it this way: by throwing a bottle at a car they can have westerners whinging about it for years. That's why it's done. To piss you off as much as you pissed them off.
Back to Top
fantasus View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 08 May 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 1943
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote fantasus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 Sep 2012 at 23:10
I will start with this:
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

Some protest somewhere will always turn violent, and someone will always be there to ensure it.
I am not sure what is meant. I amsure many prtests around the world without violence.
In thiis case the violence almost exclussively were against someone that had nothing to do with the whole thing.
 
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

Violence has either been massively overblown or occured in countries where protests always turn violent. 

So has the postulated "offences" been massively overblown.
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

Because violence is something indisuptably undesirable it is used to discredit and distract from the argument and belittle the protesters.
An alternative view: Those ignoring the violence tend to make them way more "noble and just" than they are. In general I doubnt they are "belittled". And they are not that important or great (except,perhaps, as a problem) 
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

 Which only pisses the protesters off more to ensure that this occurs next time. It's used as an excuse for pre-existing racism.
The issue is religion and the attitudes towards it.
 
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

Think of it this way: by throwing a bottle at a car they can have westerners whinging about it for years. That's why it's done. To piss you off as much as you pissed them off.
You may be right here. It is perhaps not the right thing to "whine" or "whinge" - or say "sorry". Perhaps a more hard and confronting attitude is way better.


Edited by fantasus - 29 Sep 2012 at 23:11
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 Sep 2012 at 23:45
Originally posted by Zagros Zagros wrote:

Yes but even the slightest review of the holocaust (easiest example to think of) - however academic detached from extremism and ill intent - undoubtedly ends with the "perpetrator" being ostracised and  having his or her career completely ruined by the press with the full backing of the establishment, never mind the personal threats and other financial consequences.
The right to ostracise someone - to refuse to associate with them - is surely as fundamental as the right to speak freely.

Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
Parnell View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 04 Apr 2007
Location: Barcelona
Status: Offline
Points: 3225
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Parnell Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Sep 2012 at 03:53
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

For the narrow issue of the movie that was made, I do not think there is anything to protest about. The US Government has said and done exactly the right things, and all people in responsiblity have condemned the film. There is no point getting worked up about one random nutjob.
This is quite unlike the Cartoon contraversy, because then the Danish government and other people in positions of power in Europe took reprehensable positions, and what they did was far more insulting and threatening than the actual cartoons. In other words, it was the racism displayed by the Danish authorities that was the real problem.
 


Honestly Omar, I really think this kind of argument is so weak. The Danish authorities made a politically courageous decision to stand on the side of freedom of speech. I've seen those cartoons, and they weren't racist or offensive to Muslims as a people (They aren't a race by the way, but anyway) They depicted the prophet Muhammed, which isn't an offense for a non Muslim. They depicted the prophet muhammed as a suicide bomber, which again, isn't a big deal. Get over it. Jesus H Christ I'm sick of this watery relativism that gets marched out time and time again.
http://xkcd.com/15/



Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it. ~George Bernard Shaw
Back to Top
Guest View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guest Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Sep 2012 at 05:05
Originally posted by Captain Vancouver Captain Vancouver wrote:

Freud would have summed it up quite quickly. The rioters are acting out their fears and insecurities. They need religious belief for their sense of well being, and don't see a ready replacement for it, yet are aware at a deeper level that there is actually scant evidence for it. What is felt to be important, yet vulnerable, generates a strong defense, one that can even get irrational. Look at it this way, if one was absoluely sure of their belief, it wouldn't matter what anyone else thought. If they disagreed, or were even mocking in their disagreement, it would be their mistake, and their ignorance, would it not? Certainly nothing to worry about.
Your posts make the most sense to me here, but on this I must protest.  Freud is long out of date, out of science. People grow angry because they have been insulted. One of the most important of our social instincts is status. We all want to keep status in the human pecking-order. People in Islam grow angry when they see their religion being insulted. We allow extremists here to say, in effect, "our civilization and way of life is far superior to yours" (i.e., "we have more status). Why are they so sensitive? Because we have been humiliating them for the last half century---beginning with the set-up and our defense of Israel.  They logically see the junky movie as an arrogant put down of their long and (until the last eight centuries) great civilization. They see that our system is so extreme on the subject of "freedom" that it allows shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre, insult religious beliefs and, except for Germany, allow people to insult the faithful believers of Judaism.
Quote Yes, people have a right to feel angry. They do not have a right to act out that anger in destructive ways. That's simply part of the maturation process. Furthermore, if one is feeling rage, it is really then one's responsibility to try and figure out why this is so. Anger and rage are often secondary emotions to some other primary reaction, such as fear. It is usually much more productive to try and understand what is really going on emotionally, and then deal with that, rather than discuss the concept of insults, and philosophical and mystic beliefs. In that sense, I stand by my use of the term "pathetic" to describe (a small minority) that are acting out in extreme fashion, with little intellectual input on their part into the real dynamics of the situation.
It is the militant minority that tends to drag along the apathetical majority. We encourage Muslim anger, demonstrations and rioting by the way we keep invading and using Islam. And by Muslim standards, the militant's response is justified even more secular Muslims. Their religion is less feminine and more barbaric than ours (although not as much so as is Orthodox Judaism). Yet keep trying to impose our secular world view on them. They are are beginning to grow less, not more, enthralled with it.
 
Back to Top
Guest View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guest Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Sep 2012 at 05:09
Welcome to this thread, Parnell.  Aren't (weren't) you once "the uncrowed king of Ireland?"
 
 
Back to Top
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 30 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2146
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Sep 2012 at 07:32
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

Originally posted by Captain Vancouver Captain Vancouver wrote:

 
 
It is not really the same thing though AJ. The holocaust laws are there not simply because some might feel "insulted" by transgressors, but because (rightly or wrongly) it is thought that this sort of revision of history may have grave consequences for the future. It is rooted in the idea of group rights overriding individual rights, at certain logically defined points.
 
Here is the thing. Hardcore nazis are proud of the holocaust, they don't deny it. Plus as a historical fact no different than Kaiser Wilhelm II was once ruler of Germany and supported by overwhelming evidence (all "deniers" including Irving and others acknowledge the holocaust too) any one who callange it would be no different than anyone challanging that the earth is round.
 
To say that by not protecting the holocaust people might forget it or do it again is ludicrous. If the population wants to committ genocide it will do so holocaust or not. France almost committed one in Algeria when it imprisoned 25% of the population is consentration camps. Eli Wiesel, the holocaust survivor and advocate for these laws have been on the record supporting similar measures against the Palestinians. The leader of the gang which tried to stop the Cologne mosque along with the neo-Nazis was a holocaust survivor.
 
Sure, a law like this is no guaruntee, but there is reasoning behind it. The holocaust did not happen out of the blue. Racism was ingrained in society at that time, and Jews had a long history of being used as a target of angst from various sources. We have seen historically how mounting sentiments of this kind can be terribly destructive. Acting against racism is a reasonable goal for a society.
 
Anyway, my point is not to defend this particular law, but to say that there is a significant difference between limiting free speech because one has carefully considered the benefits to society versus those to individuals, and limiting it because a few people cannot accept any sort of challenge to, or negative commentary on their personal philosophical beliefs. One bad video, or a few not particularly funny cartoons do not represent a societal movement towards murderous racism, but are an unavoidable occasional event in a liberal society. 
 
 
 
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

Originally posted by Captain Vancouver Captain Vancouver wrote:

This is a long way from insisting on death to those that make fun of a  certain type of philosophical notion. This is a reaction based in extreme ignorance of: (1) the fact that we are talking about a myth, or at least a philosophical theory at best (2) the world is a diverse place, and others have their own beliefs, ones which may not coincide with one's own (3) the probability that this sort of extreme violence stems from deeper issues, such as the fear that one may be quite wrong about the world, or the fear that others are dominating and threatening one's well being.
 
Not it is not.
 
Again, you use your yard stick to measure other people's lawns. It doesn't matter if the sacred thing was a fact or not, what matter's is how do people see it.
 
I understand, AJ, that there is a cult out there that believes in castrating internet using history buffs. They sincerely believe in this, and see it as their cultural heritage. Therefore, they should not be challenged, or limited in any way, correct?
 
Unless we abandon reason altogether, all things should be open to challenge, and if they do not stand up to even limited scrutiney, then they should be called on that basis. Demanding that makers of goofy videos (half way around the world) should be arrested, or worse, because they have produced something that threatens a tenuous belief system does not stand up to scrutiney IMO. 
 

 

Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

Originally posted by Captain Vancouver Captain Vancouver wrote:

All countries can (and do) limit free speech to some degree, but limitations should be based on demonstrated logical need. Basing them on religious hubris or political self-interest is a slippery slope.
 
And how would you define those "logical needs". There is no law in the world no matter how pizzar it is without a logic. In the case of blasphamy it is easy. Tens of millions of illiterate people who will threaten the peace of the country if such a thing is allowed regardless of how stupid the law might be.
 
Al-Jassas
There is no silver bullet here, but to abandon all logic in the community versus individual debate will not stand us in good stead.
 
If a country is in danger of millions of illiterates running amok, then perhaps it is then the role of government to try and shape such outlooks to a more functional model. Education would help, or perhaps a law that made an example out of past violent excesses for the very purpose of improving societal values (hmm...that sounds familiar, doesn't it?). Surely this would be a better long term plan than threatening the lives of Danish cartoonist, or US film makers.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.03
Copyright ©2001-2019 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.156 seconds.