| 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
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 07:49
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.
 
Come on now Omar, these were just silly cartoons, the same thing that every politician and public (and religious) figure in the west has to endure every day. The reaction of the Danes was not racism, but the defense of free speech (and the condemnation of medieval values).
 
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

  
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.
 
Here I think you are coming to the core of the matter. There are often underlying motivations for people's actions, ones sometimes not well understood by even the individuals involved. I think there is a lot more to this than just being "insulted", including the feelings stated above.
 
Partly because of the traumatic nature of some of these countries, religion can provide a refuge and meaning for many not found elsewhere. When a suggestion is then made that this system may have little depth, it can be extremely threatening to those that have invested so much in it.
 
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.
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: 30 Sep 2012 at 09:52
Originally posted by charles brough charles brough wrote:

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.
 
Yes Freud is outdated in many ways, but some of the fundamental psychological principles he pioneered are quite valid. When very basic human needs are threatened, people can construct various defenses to try and maintain them, often without a clear understanding of the process going on within themselves.
 
When a strong emotion is expressed, there are often underlying currents that are motivating it. Think about the idea of an "insult". If it makes no sense, is it really felt as an insult? If I say to you that you are fat, and really you are trim and in good shape, you are likely to wander away shaking your head, but unlikely hurl back an angry reply. If, on the other hand, you really are fat, or at least see yourself as being that way, and have suffered the discrimination and cruel blows that can occur in this event, defenses may click in, in the form of anger, denial, retribution, etc.
 
If one truly believes in an omnipotent being, and that such being is directing them towards the ideal existence, then those that can't or won't understand such a state of affairs would be in a sad state, would they not? They are loosing out on the real meaning of life, and not least on an eternal paradise. Poor them. Your attitude towards them should be: (1) murderous rage, or, (2) pity? If it is (1), then rationally something else is going on here........and Freud would have offered up a suggestion.
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: 30 Sep 2012 at 14:59

Originally posted by fantasus fantasus wrote:

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.


I mean if there are 100 protests the chances that every single protest is completely peaceful is very small. You are relying on a lot of people to have excellent behaviour, that never happens. Then the media just picks the 10 people in the 99th protest and broadcast that.
Quote So has the postulated "offences" been massively overblown.

yep.
Quote 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)

Haven't heard of anyone ignoring it.
Quote The issue is religion and the attitudes towards it.

The issue isn't religion. That's just a method used to stir people up.

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: 30 Sep 2012 at 15:04
Originally posted by Parnell Parnell wrote:

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.
Of course it is. They only attack the prophet in order to attack modern muslims.
That would be courageous in the Sir Humphery usage of the word.
And, Google stood on the side of Freedom of Speech "it doesn't violate the YouTube usage agreement", the Danish government's position was thinly veiled bigotry.
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: 30 Sep 2012 at 15:09

Originally posted by CV CV wrote:

Come on now Omar, these were just silly cartoons, the same thing that every politician and public (and religious) figure in the west has to endure every day. The reaction of the Danes was not racism, but the defense of free speech (and the condemnation of medieval values).

If you want to understand the reaction you have to understand people are not really reacting to the cartoons or the movie. That is just a catalyst.

I think that many people have no interest in understanding or fixing the problem. They just want to fight it out.



Edited by Omar al Hashim - 30 Sep 2012 at 15:09
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: 30 Sep 2012 at 21:43
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:


Quote The issue is religion and the attitudes towards it.

The issue isn't religion. That's just a method used to stir people up.

I just assume the protesters mean what they say or shout. I don´t know of any protesters not saying "blasphemy", "insult to Allah and his prophet" or something similar. I think one must as a general rule assume people mean as they say. If not any discussion, any exchange of opinion, and any action become extremely difficult. I can easily imagine any debate being destroyed then,including on "Historum". "He/she says x, but he really means y". Unless very good support is put forward that is not a very good approach.
 
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 21:51
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

Originally posted by Parnell Parnell wrote:

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.
Of course it is. They only attack the prophet in order to attack modern muslims.
That would be courageous in the Sir Humphery usage of the word.
And, Google stood on the side of Freedom of Speech "it doesn't violate the YouTube usage agreement", the Danish government's position was thinly veiled bigotry.


I completely disagree with what you are saying. I use courageous in the 'Yes,Minister' sense of the word because it was politically damaging to do what they did. Denmark suffered a lot because one of their artists exercised their right to free speech, and because a backward civilisation forgot to take its prozac for a day.


Edited by Parnell - 30 Sep 2012 at 21:51
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
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: 01 Oct 2012 at 06:49
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

....Of course it is. They only attack the prophet in order to attack modern muslims...
 
Attack modern muslims? It's a cartoon- a form of expression with a long history in liberal democracies, used to entertain, point out ironies, illustrate the human condition, to lampoon, to criticize in a humourous way. Those that can't understand or accept the subtleties of this form of communication need to seek out a better education, or do some personal growth work.
 
Newspapers in this part of the work have issued the most grotesque parodies of public figures over the years, and it is accepted in the spirit of a rational and open society, in almost all cases. Those that cannot stand criticism need to look to themselves, to see it their ideas are really as durable as they had thought, or to try and better understand their own fears and insecurities.
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: 01 Oct 2012 at 15:06
Originally posted by fantasus fantasus wrote:

Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:


Quote The issue is religion and the attitudes towards it.

The issue isn't religion. That's just a method used to stir people up.

I just assume the protesters mean what they say or shout. I don´t know of any protesters not saying "blasphemy", "insult to Allah and his prophet" or something similar. I think one must as a general rule assume people mean as they say. If not any discussion, any exchange of opinion, and any action become extremely difficult. I can easily imagine any debate being destroyed then,including on "Historum". "He/she says x, but he really means y". Unless very good support is put forward that is not a very good approach.
 
Have you heard of blackface? Painting your face black and doing an act? Do you know that this is considered very racist in America?
 
Are the Americans objecting to facepaint? Or are they objecting to the connotations that has been associated with that facepaint over 400 years of slavery & subjugation?
 
Same deal.
 
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: 01 Oct 2012 at 15:22
Originally posted by Captain Vancouver Captain Vancouver wrote:

Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

....Of course it is. They only attack the prophet in order to attack modern muslims...
 
Attack modern muslims? It's a cartoon- a form of expression with a long history in liberal democracies, used to entertain, point out ironies, illustrate the human condition, to lampoon, to criticize in a humourous way. Those that can't understand or accept the subtleties of this form of communication need to seek out a better education, or do some personal growth work.
 
Newspapers in this part of the work have issued the most grotesque parodies of public figures over the years, and it is accepted in the spirit of a rational and open society, in almost all cases. Those that cannot stand criticism need to look to themselves, to see it their ideas are really as durable as they had thought, or to try and better understand their own fears and insecurities.
They have a long history in illiberal non-democracies too.
Think about it CV, it's all about fear and insecurities. Exactly who are they lampooning and critising? Who's expense is the joke at? Who are you making fun of?
 
Would it happen to be the same people who are rioting? The same people who are dealing with this the worst?
Would it be the same people who are taking up arms to defend their countries from NATO invaders? Or who's families have been attacked and bombed by the west in the past?
 
Where are the protests at their worst? In Libya? In Pakistan? In Afghanistan? In Palestine?
 
How do you think you would feel if, after your son was killed by an American bomb, you were critised for years for being a cry baby about it, told you had to deal with the crticism cause of 'freedom of speech', constantly referred to as silly, emotional, and mistaken. Don't you think, you might just be a tad pissed off?
 
You have to understand, for 1.5 billion people in the world Islam is our number 1 identity. Even before it is a religion it is an identity, and for many it is the only thing they have left. Attacking a persons identity after you have taken everything else that they can be proud of away is only ever going to lead to one reaction.
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: 01 Oct 2012 at 19:31
sorry, see next post

Edited by fantasus - 01 Oct 2012 at 20:02
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: 01 Oct 2012 at 19:58
Originally posted by fantasus fantasus wrote:

Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

 

 
Have you heard of blackface? Painting your face black and doing an act? Do you know that this is considered very racist in America?
 
Are the Americans objecting to facepaint? Or are they objecting to the connotations that has been associated with that facepaint over 400 years of slavery & subjugation?
 
Same deal.
 
The first appears to me to be something specific for U.S.A, and perhaps some other countries.
I struggle to see the relevance, since I know of noone related to this dispute painting their or other persons faces "black". From Rushdie and onwards all "prophet-troubles" have been about that - the person that a big part of humanity regard as Allahs last and greatest prophet na dhis teaching and life.
To Your last question: americans have different motives, like anybody else. If the question is about I think the most influential americans motives, and why they react, the government in particular: I can´t help the condemnations of the filmmaker is not so much because of serious indignation as about to avoid troubles with believers. I have seen a lot of "excusers" here and in neighbour-countries and I have a very strong impression that this is at the core of it:"We give excuses to avoid trouble" - simply.
This discussion seems to be "more of the same", so I will probably stop here, unless some new viewpoints or arguments appear.
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: 01 Oct 2012 at 21:48
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

You have to understand, for 1.5 billion people in the world Islam is our number 1 identity. Even before it is a religion it is an identity, and for many it is the only thing they have left. Attacking a persons identity after you have taken everything else that they can be proud of away is only ever going to lead to one reaction.


How have Scandinavian cartoonists taken everything away from 1.5 billion Muslims? The cartoons were about internal affairs, because a rising Muslim populace largely with completely different values from the natives causes friction. People have struggled to get religion out of the politics for a couple of centuries and suddenly another political religion is making entrance. The cartoons were a part of that debate, not about real or imagined wrongs done by other states in other nations.
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: 02 Oct 2012 at 06:57
Originally posted by Styrbiorn Styrbiorn wrote:

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">



For me, it's not about forbidding or legality I was just exploring the perspective of the other side - it's about respect and sensitivity - anyone who can't understand that needs to stop being so narrow minded.  When I am at the zoo, I don't taunt the baboons to get a kick because I can and then justify it by claiming freedom of expression unless I am some neurotic attention seeker or editor of a failing publication.

Any depiction of Muhammad is insulting to most Muslims and inciting for the minority who are the baboons in my analogy - the simple fact is that the publishers of these cartoons are opportunists who see such publication as a final lifeline for their failing businesses because they know the one sure way to gain noteriety is to publish cartoons of Muhammad.

Edited by Zagros - 02 Oct 2012 at 06:59
"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: 02 Oct 2012 at 09:08
Originally posted by Zagros Zagros wrote:



Any depiction of Muhammad is insulting to most Muslims and inciting for the minority who are the baboons in my analogy - the simple fact is that the publishers of these cartoons are opportunists who see such publication as a final lifeline for their failing businesses because they know the one sure way to gain noteriety is to publish cartoons of Muhammad.


Be that as it may, should the right to take offense trump the right to publish satirical cartoons? The Irish had to endure caricatures in Punch magazine throughout the 19th century (Various stereotypes such as violent drunks, wifebeaters, half ape/half man etc.) This isn't a new thing.
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: 02 Oct 2012 at 10:44
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:


 
You have to understand, for 1.5 billion people in the world Islam is our number 1 identity. Even before it is a religion it is an identity, and for many it is the only thing they have left. Attacking a persons identity after you have taken everything else that they can be proud of away is only ever going to lead to one reaction.


I fail  to see how everything was taken from Muslims that Muslims hadn't willingly trampled on and taken from themselves over the centuries. Same story with us Christians. Unfortunately, victimization and loss is not a Muslim thing only and it should not be painted as such. Corruption steals all and knows no allegiance to one single entity. Inflexibility to change with the times, no matter how well intentioned,  has a way of retarding growth. It happens to all of us, our views, our identities are at any point open to ridicule and caricatures at a moments notice from anyone, free speech laws or not.
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: 02 Oct 2012 at 10:50
Originally posted by Styrbiorn Styrbiorn wrote:

Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

You have to understand, for 1.5 billion people in the world Islam is our number 1 identity. Even before it is a religion it is an identity, and for many it is the only thing they have left. Attacking a persons identity after you have taken everything else that they can be proud of away is only ever going to lead to one reaction.


How have Scandinavian cartoonists taken everything away from 1.5 billion Muslims? The cartoons were about internal affairs, because a rising Muslim populace largely with completely different values from the natives causes friction. People have struggled to get religion out of the politics for a couple of centuries and suddenly another political religion is making entrance. The cartoons were a part of that debate, not about real or imagined wrongs done by other states in other nations.


Philosophy of the  power vacuum. Has the balance been that greatly upset?
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: 02 Oct 2012 at 12:39
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

Originally posted by Captain Vancouver Captain Vancouver wrote:

Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

....Of course it is. They only attack the prophet in order to attack modern muslims...
 
Attack modern muslims? It's a cartoon- a form of expression with a long history in liberal democracies, used to entertain, point out ironies, illustrate the human condition, to lampoon, to criticize in a humourous way. Those that can't understand or accept the subtleties of this form of communication need to seek out a better education, or do some personal growth work.
 
Newspapers in this part of the work have issued the most grotesque parodies of public figures over the years, and it is accepted in the spirit of a rational and open society, in almost all cases. Those that cannot stand criticism need to look to themselves, to see it their ideas are really as durable as they had thought, or to try and better understand their own fears and insecurities.
They have a long history in illiberal non-democracies too.
Think about it CV, it's all about fear and insecurities. Exactly who are they lampooning and critising? Who's expense is the joke at? Who are you making fun of?
 
Anyone and everyone, no doubt from the Danish prime minister, to Christian religious figures, to others who happen to find themselves in the limelight, including those that advocate extreme ideology in the Muslim areas of the world.
 
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

  
Would it happen to be the same people who are rioting? The same people who are dealing with this the worst?
Would it be the same people who are taking up arms to defend their countries from NATO invaders? Or who's families have been attacked and bombed by the west in the past?
 
Where are the protests at their worst? In Libya? In Pakistan? In Afghanistan? In Palestine?
 
How do you think you would feel if, after your son was killed by an American bomb, you were critised for years for being a cry baby about it, told you had to deal with the crticism cause of 'freedom of speech', constantly referred to as silly, emotional, and mistaken. Don't you think, you might just be a tad pissed off?
 
I take your point that for many, the anger and rage is about things other than religion per se. Raw nerves are easily irritated, and many may perhaps not even be completely aware of the source of their rage. Past and present ideas about colonialism play a part here, yes.
 
This explanation is not an adequate answer however. How would India fare if they were to throw a few pointed barbs at Allah in their discourse with Pakistan? How are the Thai military doing with their conflict with the Muslim minority in that country? Indeed, how would Muslims themselves fare if they should question the prevailing paradigm? How would, let's say, a Saudi university student make out if he (or she) were to write an article that said religion is bunk, there is no God, wake up and get a grip? Some countries still have the death penalty for "blasphemy". There is more to this than just an east/west geopolitical debate.
 
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

  
You have to understand, for 1.5 billion people in the world Islam is our number 1 identity. Even before it is a religion it is an identity, and for many it is the only thing they have left. Attacking a persons identity after you have taken everything else that they can be proud of away is only ever going to lead to one reaction.
 
Identifying with a particular creation myth, one rooted in the middle ages, and doing so so comprehensively that it is all consuming, to the extent that a hint that it may be all misguided is an existential threat, is a personal choice. It is of course an individuals right to do so, but in modern society it is, IMO, an obligation for individuals to try an examine their own psychological process to an extent that is reasonable. Reasonable means that if one is enraged to the point of burning tires in the street, and calling for death or at least some severe sanction for those that either disagree, or make light of one's beliefs, then it is likely productive to try and see where these urges are coming from. To say one is insulted is not enough. Eighteen year old boys are (sometimes) insulted, and have difficulty getting over it. Those more advanced on life's course should not be so vulnerable.
 
In reality, our identities, all of us, are multifaceted. They are a combination of many factors, philosophical and pragmatic. The need to identify with a particular idea may be felt- but it should also be understood. That that is so fragile that a cartoonist half a world away can be an existential threat should, if you ask me, be re-examined in an open fashion.
 
If the rage really stems from "having everything taken away", then the energy would be much better spent looking at the situation in the Muslim countries themselves, where in fact much has been taken away, to the detriment of the masses of the people. Changing goverments will help here, certainly much more so than changing cartoonists in Copenhagen.
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: 02 Oct 2012 at 13:22
Now that the topic has been raised, I'm curious as to why this sort of victim complex does exist in the Muslim world. Do Muslims really feel that the West has taken everything from them?
 
If so, I think that's a pretty dysfunctional view. Vis a vis the West, the Muslim world generally got off fairly lightly. The Muslim world suffered far less at the hands of colonialists than other countries. Plenty of Muslim nations avoided being colonised, and out of those which were colonised it usually didn't last very long. Compare that with the rest of the globe.
 
Look at the relations between countries like Vietnam and the Phillipines and their former European and American masters. These SE Asian countries spent longer under colonial rule and were exploited far more heavily than people in the Muslim world were. And yet they have moved on, left the past behind them, built a new future out of industry and development, and largely cast aside their former emnity. How they can do this, while the Muslim world cannot, I simply find baffling.


Edited by Constantine XI - 02 Oct 2012 at 13:24
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: 02 Oct 2012 at 20:27

I agree with Fantasus that we're starting to go over "more of the same" and there's no point going down that route again. But CXI has raised an interesting point.

Originally posted by fantasus fantasus wrote:

I struggle to see the relevance, since I know of noone related to this dispute painting their or other persons faces "black".

What I mean is that the strongest reactions are by those who reacting against the modern & historical connotations of the act rather than the act itself.
All muslims are offended by the act, but those who take it to an extreme are really conflating the act with other confrontation (that said, I do believe the authors of such works are deliberately conflating them and know exactly what their doing).
Originally posted by CXI CXI wrote:

Now that the topic has been raised, I'm curious as to why this sort of victim complex does exist in the Muslim world. Do Muslims really feel that the West has taken everything from them?
 
 
If so, I think that's a pretty dysfunctional view

I agree. Nevertheless it exists.
First, lets ask who is doing it? Malays and Indonesians are not, West Africans are not, Russians & Chinese are not. It's Arabs, Iranis, Turks, Afghans and Pakis predominantly.

First Turks - embodied in the national anthem of Turkey I would think it was mostly historical now. Rooted primarily in politics of the 19th century culminating in the first world war. Turks may have a certain degree of antagonism with the west but I wouldn't call it a victim complex because frankly, they won, their country survived, westernised on their terms, and they've been allies with the west against Russia for 70 years.

Afpaks - colonialism laid the groundwork especially since these areas were the often the most hostile to British rule. Anti-colonialism is easily mixed with anti-westernism but the two key points that made this region anti-western today has been the two invasions of Afghanistan, by the US and Russia, and the steady increase in corruption and disorder that has accompanied it. America freely admits it is interfered in Pakistani politics since the 80s. So you have a combination of foriegn invasion and domestic corruption fueling it.

Iran - before the revolution this was because of western support, and much earlier installation, of a very unpopular regime. So anger at the domestic situation translated easily into anti-western anger because, they put the government in. After the revolution, constant enmity with the west is a potent fuel that the new government has been keen to tap. Almost all of its neighbours have been invaded since the revolution, and frankly they have good right to be fearful.

Arabs - Although hardly colonised, I don't think you can pick any thirty year period since 1915 where one or more Arab country hasn't been invaded by a western country. So you probably have 4 generations - as long as anyone can remember - who have grown up with some state of war with a western country on the horizon. The political system and all national borders were drawn up in the West (France & Britain), and that they are both dysfunctional and unjust fuels the peace time hatred between the invasions.

Not to mention that all these groups (and the others in East Asia & Africa) identify with each other, and there are always the little antagonisms like the cartoons just to keep people bubbling along when they might otherwise calm down. If you take these countries together then every 10 years there's been something to really get upset about, like thousands dieing, since 1914. Af-Pak-Iran-Arabs have all had direct installations, attempts, or repeated political pressure at altering or inventing their governments, and very rarely has this been in a way the populace wanted.

In contrast, South East Asia has had 40 years of peace since the vietnam war. 50 or 60 since post-colonialism. Many of those governments were just as bad as the ME ones to start with (like South Korea) but have been able to rectify that without obvious foriegn interference. Pax Chimerica, the balance of power between the USA after it's vietnam defeat and China, I think is largely responsible for that. In the ME there has been no abatement to the interference.

So bottom line - I still blame the people of the ME for their troubles by being disunited and illdisciplined. I don't think a victim complex is useful or productive, however there is very good reason why it exists and they are not wrong about it. When people get pissed off about a movie and burn flags & embassies, they are burning it for every reason since 1914, everything from what their great-great-grandfather said to what they've seen with their own eyes.



Edited by Omar al Hashim - 02 Oct 2012 at 20:27
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: 03 Oct 2012 at 04:21
Originally posted by Parnell Parnell wrote:

Originally posted by Zagros Zagros wrote:



Any depiction of Muhammad is insulting to most Muslims and inciting for the minority who are the baboons in my analogy - the simple fact is that the publishers of these cartoons are opportunists who see such publication as a final lifeline for their failing businesses because they know the one sure way to gain noteriety is to publish cartoons of Muhammad.


Be that as it may, should the right to take offense trump the right to publish satirical cartoons? The Irish had to endure caricatures in Punch magazine throughout the 19th century (Various stereotypes such as violent drunks, wifebeaters, half ape/half man etc.) This isn't a new thing.


It's about civilised behaviour.  Neither party is displaying civilised behaviour.  One is taunting the other is reacting - very base behaviours.  To get bogged down in the details is to miss that fact.



"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: 03 Oct 2012 at 04:29
Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:

Now that the topic has been raised, I'm curious as to why this sort of victim complex does exist in the Muslim world. Do Muslims really feel that the West has taken everything from them?
 
If so, I think that's a pretty dysfunctional view. Vis a vis the West, the Muslim world generally got off fairly lightly. The Muslim world suffered far less at the hands of colonialists than other countries. Plenty of Muslim nations avoided being colonised, and out of those which were colonised it usually didn't last very long. Compare that with the rest of the globe.
 
Look at the relations between countries like Vietnam and the Phillipines and their former European and American masters. These SE Asian countries spent longer under colonial rule and were exploited far more heavily than people in the Muslim world were. And yet they have moved on, left the past behind them, built a new future out of industry and development, and largely cast aside their former emnity. How they can do this, while the Muslim world cannot, I simply find baffling.


Obviously not all Muslims do, but a considerable number.

To understand the mind-set you have to understand the history of over a century and a half of meddling by "The West" (specifically the British to begin with) some of which you don't and haven't even heard about and would be compltely incredulous if you did.  It all builds to a mind-set of resentment especially when the same meddling continues to this day.  Why did the barbarians hate the Romans or the Greeks the Persians?  It was for good reason don't think this situation is any different.  People don't like outsiders messing with their sh*t.  Simple as that.

Don't believe the crap you read in sanitised western mass media publications with all of these red herrings they present you with as reasons for various things like a muhammad cartoon being the reason rather than the spark or general anti-westernism for the sake of anti-westernism.  You know all those drone strikes killing civilians, instances of war crimes, military occupation etc.  these things get pent up and it only takes one publication to spark it all off when you also consider the political histories of pretty much all of these countries - they have been and are run by an autocratic establishment where the state controls the media and you have to understand that the ignorant baboons assume that the government controls the media in the West - which they do, but on a macro rather than micro level so you get these weird Muhammad cartoons in obscure little publications but would never see it in the broad agenda setting media like the BBC or CNN etc unless it was governemnt policy to piss off muslims directly.




Edited by Zagros - 03 Oct 2012 at 06:29
"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: 03 Oct 2012 at 09:49
Originally posted by Zagros Zagros wrote:

Originally posted by Parnell Parnell wrote:

Originally posted by Zagros Zagros wrote:



Any depiction of Muhammad is insulting to most Muslims and inciting for the minority who are the baboons in my analogy - the simple fact is that the publishers of these cartoons are opportunists who see such publication as a final lifeline for their failing businesses because they know the one sure way to gain noteriety is to publish cartoons of Muhammad.


Be that as it may, should the right to take offense trump the right to publish satirical cartoons? The Irish had to endure caricatures in Punch magazine throughout the 19th century (Various stereotypes such as violent drunks, wifebeaters, half ape/half man etc.) This isn't a new thing.


It's about civilised behaviour.  Neither party is displaying civilised behaviour.  One is taunting the other is reacting - very base behaviours.  To get bogged down in the details is to miss that fact.





The way I look at this is that there has been a tradition of satirical cartoons of some kind or another going back thousands of years (Some even ascribe various caveman paintings as the prelude to Punch and the like) Its a rich, varied tradition that is famously indifferent to the sensitivities of individual groups. It is irreverent and satirical, that is its purpose.

I'd be worried if we started legislating against insulting Muslims, we're going to have a situation where South Park becomes an underground programme for the few remaining people who care about open-ness, freedom of speech, and non conformism. This is one of the cases where the slippery slope argument is front and central.
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
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: 03 Oct 2012 at 13:56
Originally posted by Zagros Zagros wrote:

Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:

Now that the topic has been raised, I'm curious as to why this sort of victim complex does exist in the Muslim world. Do Muslims really feel that the West has taken everything from them?
 
If so, I think that's a pretty dysfunctional view. Vis a vis the West, the Muslim world generally got off fairly lightly. The Muslim world suffered far less at the hands of colonialists than other countries. Plenty of Muslim nations avoided being colonised, and out of those which were colonised it usually didn't last very long. Compare that with the rest of the globe.
 
Look at the relations between countries like Vietnam and the Phillipines and their former European and American masters. These SE Asian countries spent longer under colonial rule and were exploited far more heavily than people in the Muslim world were. And yet they have moved on, left the past behind them, built a new future out of industry and development, and largely cast aside their former emnity. How they can do this, while the Muslim world cannot, I simply find baffling.


Obviously not all Muslims do, but a considerable number.

To understand the mind-set you have to understand the history of over a century and a half of meddling by "The West" (specifically the British to begin with) some of which you don't and haven't even heard about and would be compltely incredulous if you did.  It all builds to a mind-set of resentment especially when the same meddling continues to this day.  Why did the barbarians hate the Romans or the Greeks the Persians?  It was for good reason don't think this situation is any different.  People don't like outsiders messing with their sh*t.  Simple as that.

Don't believe the crap you read in sanitised western mass media publications with all of these red herrings they present you with as reasons for various things like a muhammad cartoon being the reason rather than the spark or general anti-westernism for the sake of anti-westernism.  You know all those drone strikes killing civilians, instances of war crimes, military occupation etc.  these things get pent up and it only takes one publication to spark it all off when you also consider the political histories of pretty much all of these countries - they have been and are run by an autocratic establishment where the state controls the media and you have to understand that the ignorant baboons assume that the government controls the media in the West - which they do, but on a macro rather than micro level so you get these weird Muhammad cartoons in obscure little publications but would never see it in the broad agenda setting media like the BBC or CNN etc unless it was governemnt policy to piss off muslims directly.


Germany has had a couple of good runs at sh*ting on western civilization as we know it, within the last 100 years; Japan joined in with gusto for the second act. How many westerners do you see out in the streets, setting fires, and calling for executions every time someone in one of these countries says something too far removed from PC? Virtually no one- they have moved on.
 
Vietnam suffered perhaps one million casualties in a brutal and unfair war with the US. How many are out in the streets waving nooses whenever an anti-Asian piece occurs in the media in the US? You guessed it.
 
For that matter, if we go back in time a ways, Arabs have not been entirely kind to westerners. Before the industrial era, conflict with Europe was common, as was the taking of slaves from Europe and the US. If a westerner found himself in the Muslim world without a very large escort, things could have been quite unsavory. Europeans now demanding redress for past slavery?
 
Terrible things have happened in history, but attempting to dine out on them in perpetuity is not a constructive policy for the most part.
 
Blaming all this on the west is not going to cut it. The Muslim world has extensive politial and sociological problems, ones they need to address themsleves.
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: 04 Oct 2012 at 02:41
But does Germany today launch drone strikes in America, France or the UK which kill handfuls, tens and scores of innocent people at a time?  Does germany or japan occupy any Western nation to control its resources for geostrategic purposes?

I think that if it did - especially given its history - you would find the tolerance for any German transgression, however minor, very thin indeed.  In fact, when Germany did do those things there were active armed rebellions against it and its interests globally were a target for its enemies, nation states or partisans or insurgents, militatns and terrorists as they are called today.

I think you might need to reread my post to which you responded in full.  especially the latter part of the last paragraph.


Edited by Zagros - 04 Oct 2012 at 02:45
"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
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: 04 Oct 2012 at 02:58
Originally posted by Parnell Parnell wrote:

Originally posted by Zagros Zagros wrote:

Originally posted by Parnell Parnell wrote:

Originally posted by Zagros Zagros wrote:



Any depiction of Muhammad is insulting to most Muslims and inciting for the minority who are the baboons in my analogy - the simple fact is that the publishers of these cartoons are opportunists who see such publication as a final lifeline for their failing businesses because they know the one sure way to gain noteriety is to publish cartoons of Muhammad.


Be that as it may, should the right to take offense trump the right to publish satirical cartoons? The Irish had to endure caricatures in Punch magazine throughout the 19th century (Various stereotypes such as violent drunks, wifebeaters, half ape/half man etc.) This isn't a new thing.


It's about civilised behaviour.  Neither party is displaying civilised behaviour.  One is taunting the other is reacting - very base behaviours.  To get bogged down in the details is to miss that fact.





The way I look at this is that there has been a tradition of satirical cartoons of some kind or another going back thousands of years (Some even ascribe various caveman paintings as the prelude to Punch and the like) Its a rich, varied tradition that is famously indifferent to the sensitivities of individual groups. It is irreverent and satirical, that is its purpose.

I'd be worried if we started legislating against insulting Muslims, we're going to have a situation where South Park becomes an underground programme for the few remaining people who care about open-ness, freedom of speech, and non conformism. This is one of the cases where the slippery slope argument is front and central.


Political satire usually has a moral and valid intention and is produced by disillusioned members of a society against that same society's institutions - that is sophisticated behaviour because it intends a change and perceived improvement.  For outsiders to mock and make fun of others in the way we've seen is a different story and can easily be interpreted as malicious, much like the satirical depictions of Jews Europe was famous for in the past which had an intent of mobilisaing anti-semitic sentiment.  That is why i say it is barbarous and beneath civilised behaviour.

It's not an alien concept to the Muslim world.  Some medieval Persian and Arab poets are renowned for their sometimes anti-establishment poltical satire.  As i said the extreme reactions exhibited are those of an often illiterate minority whom the mass media likes to portray as representative to confound the gullible - the likewise ignorant majority - of their own populations


Edited by Zagros - 04 Oct 2012 at 03:06
"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: 04 Oct 2012 at 03:16
Originally posted by Zagros Zagros wrote:



Political satire usually has a moral and valid intention and is produced by disillusioned members of a society against that same society's institutions - that is sophisticated behaviour because it intends a change and perceived improvement.  For outsiders to mock and make fun of others in the way we've seen is a different story and can easily be interpreted as malicious, much like the satirical depictions of Jews Europe was famous for in the past which had an intent of mobilisaing anti-semitic sentiment.  That is why i say it is barbarous and beneath civilised behaviour.

It's not an alien concept to the Muslim world.  Some medieval Persian and Arab poets are renowned for their sometimes anti-establishment poltical satire.  As i said the extreme reactions exhibited are those of an often illiterate minority whom the mass media likes to portray as representative to confound the gullible - the likewise ignorant majority - of their own populations


Are you expressing disapproval or advocating censorship?

Talk of an international blasphemy law terrifies me to be honest. If we can't make fun of muslims were will we be? Can we make fun of mormons? Christians?
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
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: 04 Oct 2012 at 03:43
No I am expressing disdain for uncivilised behaviour by what are either very sinister or simple minded opportunist individuals and their supporters.  Are you saying I can't do so?

Edited by Zagros - 04 Oct 2012 at 03:44
"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: 04 Oct 2012 at 06:57
Originally posted by Zagros Zagros wrote:

No I am expressing disdain for uncivilised behaviour by what are either very sinister or simple minded opportunist individuals and their supporters.  Are you saying I can't do so?


Of course you're entitled to that opinion, was just wondering whether I was arguing with what I imagined you said or what you actually said.
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: 05 Oct 2012 at 00:45
it seems everyone has gotten off the subject. What limits should there be on "freedom" and who should determine them? If freedom is an ideal, it seems to me that the Hippies of the 1960's showed us how to achieve it and it didn't turn out so well!
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 0.266 seconds.