Support South Park! Support Trey and Matt!

[sharprm]

I was being ironic no way did I think you had them confused.

Makes reading your posts pretty funny, like where u suggest people do some research on muhammed. Ghandi was just a guy (and hindu).

The point is what do you learn when you combine all religions, what's practical and to gain from the wisdom they might contain.

Guess during that process you lose some basic facts.

[Kamber Parrk]

Anyway! Before the Danish cartoon kerfuffle, there's no real evidence that Muslims would go all crazy and try ta kill ya if you make a rather plain vanilla illustration of their prophet.

Matt and Trey probably have more money than God Himself by now. If THEY had any true umbrage in their guts, they'd probably tell Comedy Central to pound sand.

[. . . crickets chirping. . .]

[Elam]

*Bump*

"Swedish artist who drew Mohammed as a dog attacked at lecture"

The guy who ran up and head-butted him hasn’t been identified yet, but as Moynihan notes, you can clearly hear screams of “Allahu Akbar” in the classroom as security scrambles. Note to Trey Parker and Matt Stone: If you haven’t hired full-time bodyguards yet, this is your wake-up call.

The guy at :45 cracks me up as he tries to take a swing at one of the attackers and looks like he ends up hitting the cop.

[s.ketch]

I believe he made a video called "Allah ho Gaybar" Which depicts Muhammad in many ways including as participating in homosexual acts.

Dude is a god-tier troll.

[Schnookiefoo]

"This video or group may contain content that is inappropriate for some users, as flagged by YouTube's user community."

BULLLSSHIIT. Dude at :45 is awesome, had good intentions at least.

[Kamber Parrk]

I'm sure the rational moderate Muslim community will rush to the forefront and condemn the perpetrator's violent acts.

[Wiggles]

Hah, beat me to the punch Elam.

The assailant's behavior is grossly inappropriate. Though I do not appreciate the content of the professor's art I do respect the value of artistic freedom, even if it is offensive. You don't EVER mess with another person's liberties!


-Wiggs

[squidmonk3j]

Norwegian TV won't be sending the episodes. MTV won't allow them:

«We have decided not to license these episodes due to the media frenzy and security issues. We will need to take eps 1405 and 1406 out of our pending contract owing to a company directive. Apologies for the inconvenience.»

[nauvice]

lol, are you guys choosing sides simply because it says "artist" in the article? two idiots are fighting, and the swedish artist clearly is the one who provoked and therfore, started the fight. but its the brown muslim one who's made the sole enemy... this isn't ethnocentric at all, no.

[s.ketch]

I'm choosing the side of that doesn't react with violence when their beliefs are challenged. We're not talking about race or ethnicity here. We're talking about religion. It's not "Brown people believe brown people shouldn't be depicted in any form. White man depicts brown man eating fried chicken." So we can go ahead and stop trying to play the race card here. Religion vs secular rights.

I don't like the "film" the guy made. It was in bad taste. But that doesn't even begin to justify physical attacks.

[TASmith]

I just feel sorry for the dude who brought his little girl with him to watch a movie.

[DeadlyFreeze]

I wonder whats Swedish for "dont taze me bro".

[Brendan N]

lol, are you guys choosing sides simply because it says "artist" in the article? two idiots are fighting, and the swedish artist clearly is the one who provoked and therfore, started the fight. but its the brown muslim one who's made the sole enemy... this isn't ethnocentric at all, no.

It's not. This has nothing to do with ethnicity. As Buck and I have stated, it's a clash of ideas. The terms "Muslim" and "Secularist" have nothing to do with race, and any unwarranted ethnic connotations need to be suspended.

And a non-violent provocation does NOT justify a violent response. Period.

[sharprm]

May 21st will be 'Everybody deface their cartoons and values day'.

http://www.mollynorris.com/

I can't find any pictures of her for a caricature. Did she pull down her videos too? She should just wear a burka if she is afraid of people recognizing her.



edit: found some pics.

[Vari]

*Bump*

"Swedish artist who drew Mohammed as a dog attacked at lecture"



The guy at :45 cracks me up as he tries to take a swing at one of the attackers and looks like he ends up hitting the cop.

A bit off-topic, but damn... there's one sexy female cop at :49 She even pepper-sprayed one dude in the beginning of the video... can't get any hotter than that

[Elam]

I just feel sorry for the dude who brought his little girl with him to watch a movie.

You feel sorry for the dude? The guy who's raising his arm and shouting Allah Ahkbar, then realizes his child is crying?

Feel sympathy for the child who has no idea what's going on, not the dipshit who brings his child to a situation that he's participating in and has the potential for violence.

[Christopher Genovese]

[Jason Rainville]

lol, are you guys choosing sides simply because it says "artist" in the article? two idiots are fighting, and the swedish artist clearly is the one who provoked and therfore, started the fight. but its the brown muslim one who's made the sole enemy... this isn't ethnocentric at all, no.

Serious yes or no question;

Do you think that the guy who made Mohammad into a dog should be prevented from doing so because a group of people are offended by it?

[LORD M]

I was planning on going to Vilk's lecture, wow I regret that I missed it.

Vilks was going to have a lecture on cencorship and free-speech, aswell as showing the progress on his project where he drawed Mohammed as a dog. The reason why he showed this video of homosexuals in sex-poses wearing Muhammed masks was that he was going to discuss it, it is a piece of work by the Iranian artist Sooreh Heram, who also is a muslim. He wanted to discuss how her movie been censured by youtube and others, and what is right and wrong in Iran since she is from there. He wanted to also discuss other pieces of art that had been censured but didn't get to do that because some people saw to that and sabotaged the lecture.

If one cannot use word and make the fists speak instead then they are on a too low level and should be kept away, there's NO WAY anyone can justify that moronic behaviour. If they can't behave as civilised people then they have nothing to do there.

lol, are you guys choosing sides simply because it says "artist" in the article? two idiots are fighting, and the swedish artist clearly is the one who provoked and therfore, started the fight. but its the brown muslim one who's made the sole enemy... this isn't ethnocentric at all, no.

Are you fucking serious?!

I wonder whats Swedish for "dont taze me bro".

"Shocka mig inte mannen!"

[Christopher Genovese]

Once again, a reminder why we're doing this and that we're not alone:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7ok4...os=6vg9TaIpAI8

[nauvice]

well buck, Im glad the truth finally comes out, this is just another anti-religion thread in disguise.

correlation between those who are for this and are atheist is no coincidence.

Do you think that the guy who made Mohammad into a dog should be prevented from doing so because a group of people are offended by it?

no. But he shouldn't be surprised if the person he keeps poking finally slaps him to make him stop.

[nauvice]

And a non-violent provocation does NOT justify a violent response. Period.

physical or verbal, violence is violence. They are both wrong. The swedish artist more-so for starting it.

[TASmith]

words are not violence. Sticks and stones may break my bones but words only hurt if I choose to listen. Unless it's a law or something.

[Schnookiefoo]

physical or verbal, violence is violence. They are both wrong. The swedish artist more-so for starting it.

That's one of the stupidest things I've ever read. Verbal violence does not lead to injuries or deaths. They are in no way similar and physical violence is far worse.

[Jason Rainville]

well buck, Im glad the truth finally comes out, this is just another anti-religion thread in disguise.

I'd argue it's aimed at those who don't want to be offended and threaten violence if they are. But even if it was, so? When religion has this kind of negative impact I don't see anything wrong with speaking out against it.

no.

Then what are you arguing?

physical or verbal, violence is violence. They are both wrong. The swedish artist more-so for starting it.

Oh please. That's like saying "sorry officer, he was dissin' ma gurl, I had to knife him y'know? Otherwise his words would have coalesced into a sort of trans-dimensional verbal/physical hybrid-being and destroyed us with the power of satire..."

Then we could get into the whole hate-speech thing, where you'd likely argue that the influence of the cartoon could incite discrimination of the group in question. To which I'd say that the image isn't aimed at a group of people, it's aimed at one person. Mohammad as a dog isn't a Muslim as a dog, in the same way that Jesus as a dog isn't Christians as a dog or Dawkins as a dog isn't atheists as a dog (and a preemptive caveat; no, dawkins is not the prophet of atheism. A more accurate analogy would be "no one" as a dog but I digress).

[DeadlyFreeze]

There's a big difference between wrong and illegal(unless you live in the UK).

[Jason Rainville]

There's a big difference between wrong and illegal(unless you live in the UK).

There should be a new, stronger word for wrong like... badwrong, or, badong.

Yes, killing is badong.

[N D Hill]

physical or verbal, violence is violence. They are both wrong. The swedish artist more-so for starting it.

Come on. I have to believe you're smarter than that.

zwarrior. You disagree with plenty of people here. Hell. This argument has even gotten a little heated. Notice how no one has threatened to KILL anybody. In the context of two people disagreeing and stating opinions without infringing on anyone's rights to believe or practice a belief, wouldn't you say that chopping someones head off would seem a bit inappropriate? Do you have any idea what a compromise of freedom of expression like this implies? When people can no longer state opinions or criticisms for fear of violent reprisal? Any belief system that has to resort to violent repression of spoken or written criticism is inferior for doing so. No exceptions. I've said this of my own culture and I'll say it about anybody's.

[s.ketch]

well buck, Im glad the truth finally comes out, this is just another anti-religion thread in disguise.

lol. "THIS THREAD IS RACIST! What? Oh yeah I see how I made an error in not understanding how religion doesn't correlate to ethnicity or race. My bad. Since we're talking about religion then, THIS THREAD IS ANTI-RELIGION!" I could point out how you're wrong about that too but you'll still be lost. Teach a man to fish, give a man a fish and all that jazz.

Alright, instead of repeating the same post over and over we're going to put on our thinking caps and exercise those reasoning skills. Please consider the following.

What reasons do I have that this is an anti-religious thread? Are these reasons personal feelings or can I quote examples from the actual thread? Are these quotes taken out of context? What about the quotes are specifically anti-religious? What does being anti-religious entail? What are my qualifications for being anti-religious? Is what these people said too vague? Do I need them to clarify before I make a judgment? Have I read most or the entire thread so that I am up to date on where the conversation is?

Answer those, you don't have to make a post about it. I'm not asking you to agree with me and I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I'm just trying to get you to think about what you're saying before you post.

[Ivory_Oasis]

correlation between those who are for this and are atheist is no coincidence.

Would it make you feel better if we said we were jewish instead?