Support South Park! Support Trey and Matt!

[sharprm]

I bet homosexual people have been offended by, and retaliated to South Park. Should we all draw something homosexuals would be extremely offended by?

Ya'll are being a bunch of immature dicklips.

Links please or it didn't happen.

How do you offend a homosexual though?

[nauvice]

A cow still exists with or without a religious rule claiming its sacred. So if anyone tells you you shouldn't eat a cow, it affects you, they're stepping on your toes.

Making fun of Obama/criticizing him is the opposite of praising him, they go hand in hand, and everyone should be allowed to express how they feel about their president's actions, good or bad. So if a law passed saying you can no longer criticize him for the things you disagree on, it affects you, they're stepping on your toes.

But I create a spirit who in my head is real. This spirit should not be named however, that's a rule any believer of this spirit should comply to. How does that affect you? No one is stepping on your toes, that spirit never existed in your world until I mentioned the belief in it. You're bothered by the fact that it should not be named even though you don't believe in it. You simply want to name it because you're told not to, or because you want a reaction from me (like "yeah, watchu gonna do about it"). Now you're stepping on my toes even though I did nothing to you; I just made something up and slapped a rule to it, and just like that, you're intrigued in breaking it.

[Brendan N]

A cow still exists with or without a religious rule claiming its sacred. So if anyone tells you you shouldn't eat a cow, it affects you, they're stepping on your toes.

Making fun of Obama/criticizing him is the opposite of praising him, they go hand in hand, and everyone should be allowed to express how they feel about their president's actions, good or bad. So if a law passed saying you can no longer criticize him for the things you disagree on, it affects you, they're stepping on your toes.

But I create a spirit who in my head is real. This spirit should not be named however, that's a rule any believer of this spirit should comply to. How does that affect you? No one is stepping on your toes, that spirit never existed in your world until I mentioned the belief in it. You're bothered by the fact that it should not be named even though you don't believe in it. You simply want to name it because you're told not to, or because you want a reaction from me (like "yeah, watchu gonna do about it"). Now you're stepping on my toes even though I did nothing to you; I just made something up and slapped a rule to it, and just like that, you're intrigued in breaking it.

Your spirit isn't a driving force behind international politics and you don't respond with death threats (or, indeed, actual physical violence) when I do say something critical of your spirit. Whether criticism was warranted or not is a non-issue.

[ENNEX]

I'm not sure drawing Muhammad is going to do anything whatsoever in showing Comedy Central that people support South Park's humor.

They're not taking away their rights to animate whatever religious icon they want; and honestly, they have every right in the world to decide not to air something that they feel will be bad for business.

Freedom of Speech is not at risk here from any side. But feel free to draw as many Muhammads as you wish.

[s.ketch]

A cow still exist with or without a religious rule claiming its sacred. So if anyone tells you you shouldn't eat a cow, it affects you, they're stepping on your toes.

Making fun of Obama/criticizing him is the opposite of praising him, they go hand in hand, anyone can disagree with him at some point. So if a law passed saying you can no longer criticize him for the things you disagree on, it affects you, they're stepping on your toes.

But I create a spirit who in my head is real. This spirit should not be named however, that's a rule any believer of this spirit should comply to. How does that affec you? No one is stepping on your toes, that spirit never existed in your world until I mentioned the belief in it. You're bothered by the fact that it should not be named even though you don't even believe in it. You simply want to name it because you're told not to, or because you want a reaction from me (like "yeah, watchu gonna do about it"). Now you're stepping on my toes even though I did nothing to you; I just made something up and slapped a rule to it, and just like that, you're intrigued in breaking it.

But drawings, and drawings of gods have existed before Muhammad. You (I mean you from the hypothetical situation you stated, not literally you) tell me I can't draw your spirit or you'll blow up the White House, you stepped on my toes.

Freedom of speech isn't granted by whether or not the subjects of the speech came first. I simply want to be able to draw it because it's my right to draw what I want. Of course as long as the act of drawing it doesn't cause your heart to fail or it doesn't qualify as hate speech. Personal beliefs don't trump the rights of others because you were here first. If that were the case then I could sew the entire group of people born in 1989 because they drew pictures of things from their imaginations which I view to be very sacred. Or I should be able to psychically harm them because they're really offending me and I asked them nicely to stop but they wouldn't

See what I'm saying here? You can't overwrite laws when it suits you. By international law I am free to draw Muhammad. No matter when, why, or really in what way with the very rare exception. Whether today, tomorrow, May 20th, four years ago, twenty years from now. Whether I'm doing it because I'm an asshole, because I'm altruistic, because I have a chip on my shoulder, because I can, because my god told me to, etc. I can draw Muhammad as a dignified portrait, stick figure, pile of laundry, banana, dog, a homosexual male, a terrorist.

I'm not trying to imply that just because the law it's right. But freedom of expression is more than a law as I have explained. It's an old ideal. If you feel you have a solid case against all that then go be a lawyer. There are millions of people you could represent and sew the UN. You'd make so much money. Enough to have a "Don't draw any religious figure day."

[sharprm]

You simply want to name it because you're told not to, or because you want a reaction from me (like "yeah, watchu gonna do about it").

I'd like to respond to that but I'm a little too busy - I have to go eat a chicken in a vegetarian restaurant and talk loudly in a library.

If you feel you have a solid case against all that then go be a lawyer.
There are millions of people you could represent and sew the UN. You'd make so much money. Enough to have a "Don't draw any religious figure day."

Sue? Anyway, they are already: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news...-1111119071580

[s.ketch]

Sew, sue, whatever. Soo me.

[nauvice]

Of course as long as the act of drawing it doesn't cause your heart to fail or it doesn't qualify as hate speech.

exactly. Not ignoring everything else that was said by you and Brendan, but this sentence is pretty much the gavel of this whole thing. Don't you think that if someone is crazy enough to actually kill for it, that maybe it feels like hate speech to them? It may not seem like hate speech to you because all you're doing is innocently drawing a portrait of a man and calling it mohammed. But they are not you. Just like using the word "gay" to reference something bad may seem harmless, except to a gay person. You cant decide what Muslims should or not be offended by.

their rule doesn't conflict with yours at all. Because you could not have an interest in drawing Mohammed if it, and the rule not to draw it, never existed.

[Brendan N]

Sue? Anyway, they are already: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news...-1111119071580

This thread has been way overdue on some Christopher Hitchens.

[s.ketch]

But if a minority can designate any criticism of their beliefs as hate speech so that the majority of the world must disregard an agreed upon right to freedom of expression, can't you see how that's a bad thing? What's stopping me from getting a group of people and forcing anyone to do what I want? Pejoratives can be understandably considered hate speech. The word Nig-er has little impact for me but I certainly can understand it's historical context and why it's not cool to draw a picture of an African American with the world above it. But if you notice, saying that materialism and negative values pervade black culture today, isn't hate speech. Neither is drawing a black person with baggy clothes, bling, grills, and guns. It might be a tad stereotypical but it's not hate speech. Even if some black people will be offended by it.

And the Islam rule wouldn't conflict with mine at all if the radical groups weren't using violence or legal action to force their religious rules into laws for everyone. The world isn't a Theocracy.

[George Abraham]

For all you ZA's.. Guess who's coming for a round trip.

[sharprm]

This thread has been way overdue on some Christopher Hitchens.

Top of page 4 I link to him (it's a massive thread though I know).

Actually zwarrior is right. Hate speech laws could be extended to cover not just inciting violence, but also 'likely to cause offense', not just based on sexuality and race but also religion. They do that already in Victoria.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...6/268ctmhq.asp

Although many controversial ideas were put forward in the seminar (Scot contended that the Koran makes offensive jihad obligatory and that Islam places women in an inferior position), the presenters made clear that they weren't attacking Muslims as people. A transcript reveals that Scot admonished the audience to remember that "we are not here learning how to fight with Muslims, we are learning here how we can love Muslims and help them to see the truth." Despite this, the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal determined in December 2004 that Scot and Nalliah had violated the act.

So it'd be better if we didn't have hate speech laws. Its not like they are being enforced to prevent inciting violence.

[Brendan N]

exactly. Not ignoring everything else that was said by you and Brendan, but this sentence is pretty much the gavel of this whole thing. Don't you think that if someone is crazy enough to actually kill for it, that maybe it feels like hate speech to them? It may not seem like hate speech to you because all you're doing is innocently drawing a portrait of a man and calling it mohammed. But they are not you. Just like using the word "gay" to reference something bad may seem harmless, except to a gay person. You cant decide what Muslims should or not be offended by.

their rule doesn't conflict with yours at all. Because you could not have an interest in drawing Mohammed if it, and the rule not to draw it, never existed.

So secularists need to give up their right to free speech because of a group of people are vicariously offended on behalf of a myth, the existence of which has not even been proven?

Hindus or vegans could also go around and equate abattoirs with gas chambers and charge people with murder because to them cow-slaughter is the same as 1st degree murder. And cows really exist, too.

[sharprm]

Tender moment?

[George Abraham]

I found the original. It makes sense now.

[sharprm]

That too has been doctored. Here is the original:

[Honorius]

You cant decide what Muslims should or not be offended by.

their rule doesn't conflict with yours at all. Because you could not have an interest in drawing Mohammed if it, and the rule not to draw it, never existed.

I guess they can't decide what offends me either and since, by your logic, being offended justify death threats, my feeling offended certainly justifies drawing Mohammed.

It's my religion. They offended my free speech god.

[nauvice]

Honorius, refer to my "people making "by your logic" responses" post that's one page back. straw man, my logic never justified death threats.

well it looks like you have a belief (religion) that only exists because theirs does. So its obvious you're going out of your way to get offended. e.i. you're stepping on their toes to annoy them because you're indirectly annoyed that they're doing their own thing. real mature.

So secularists need to give up their right to free speech because of a group of people are vicariously offended on behalf of a myth, the existence of which has not even been proven?

what are you giving up exactly? you CAN still draw what you want, just know its offensive to some people. Just like you CAN still say mean words to others, just know its offensive to people. Mohammed, and not drawing him, doesn't exist if their religion doesn't exist. You're cry for free speech is nothing but an immature wish to step on their religion. "mean words" don't exist if a culture claiming they're mean words, stop existing, that too is not infringing your free speech, and you seem to understand that part, but can't understand the Mohammed one.

[nauvice]

But if a minority can designate any criticism of their beliefs as hate speech so that the majority of the world must disregard an agreed upon right to freedom of expression, can't you see how that's a bad thing? What's stopping me from getting a group of people and forcing anyone to do what I want? Pejoratives can be understandably considered hate speech. The word Nig-er has little impact for me but I certainly can understand it's historical context and why it's not cool to draw a picture of an African American with the world above it. But if you notice, saying that materialism and negative values pervade black culture today, isn't hate speech. Neither is drawing a black person with baggy clothes, bling, grills, and guns. It might be a tad stereotypical but it's not hate speech. Even if some black people will be offended by it.

And the Islam rule wouldn't conflict with mine at all if the radical groups weren't using violence or legal action to force their religious rules into laws for everyone. The world isn't a Theocracy.

you're almost there. I would associate the symbol of drawing mohammed more with the symbols that represents the Nword rather than drawing black men with baggy clothes. Some blacks do that, it would be an observational speech to say or draw it, not something offensive.

And Im glad you used the word "understand" because it does seem like you don't understand why Muslims find it so offensive as much as using N-- in a negative context. I honestly don't know either, didn't bother to research it because it doesn't bother me, I can comply to it. But maybe for you, knowing the reason why its offensive might help you understand the big deal about it.

And you act like some Muslims are the only ones who would act physically to something offensive. People do fight if they're called a N-- or if you do a Mom joke. Just because it's not advertised in News like a Muslim committing a crime is, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I think you're falling for the western media bias against Muslims, unknowingly.

[OmenSpirits]

"freedome", "letsshag'sbaby", "moneynopoly", brainwashing, dar al harb, dats racist, dhimmi, dissagreementism, diszaorrtist, durka durka, geniesareevil, god is a weapon, godwillsit, i like pie, justintimberlake, lets draw muhammed, loliopoly, monopolygamy, ohnooffendedppl!, people are evil, piiiiiiiinnnnnnnngaaassss, pingas, politics, snapekilleddumbledore, southparkiscleverl0lwhut?

The devil's up with these tags?

[Honorius]

Honorius, refer to my "people making "by your logic" responses" post that's one page back. straw man, my logic never justified death threats.

well it looks like you have a belief (religion) that only exists because theirs does. So its obvious you're going out of your way to get offended. e.i. you're stepping on their toes to annoy them because you're indirectly annoyed that they're doing their own thing. real mature.



what are you giving up exactly? you CAN still draw what you want, just know its offensive to some people. Just like you CAN still say mean words to others, just know its offensive to people. Mohammed, and not drawing him, doesn't exist if their religion doesn't exist. You're cry for free speech is nothing but an immature wish to step on their religion. "mean words" don't exist if a culture claiming their mean words, stop existing, that too is not infringing your free speech, and you seem to understand that part, but can't understand the Mohammed one.

Are you saying that if the religion of Islam didn't exist I would suddenly stop believing in free speech? Suddenly, I would support thing such as "crime of opinion"?

I know that's not what you're saying. What you're saying is (among other things): "You would not draw Mohammed if it didn't exist". Well, you got me there.

You're also saying (and this is the crux of your point): "You only want to draw him because they told you not too". Also true. I don't want to, say, draw jesus having a smoke.

But the truth is that nobody really wants to draw Mohammed either. We don't really care about him. This isn't about Islam as a religion. We don't care about it, we don't believe in it.

What we do believe, however, is that there is a group of people out there that think they can restrict certain speech through the use of violence. We care a little bit more about them. We want to politely (and not so politely, I assume) disagree. This is not about offending people. We don't care wether or not their feelings are hurt. This is about proving those guy wrong.

So you're right: we only want to cross that bondary because they put it there. Somehow, this is immature and childish.

This is like saying: "You just want to destroy the Berlin wall because they built it there. This is childish".

They put up a wall. We disagree. We, therefore, have to destroy it.

[nauvice]

Not really, the Berlin wall is stepping on your toes. Drawing Mohammed is not. They put up a wall around themselves, that wall should be invisible to you because you're not muslim, you dont care for Mohammed remember.

And if it is only about those violent people, than target them, not an entire group of people that they happen to be a part of. What do you mean you don't care if they get offended? Its like targeting a few criminals, so you just bomb an entire country they are in. Yeah that makes sense.

[Kamber Parrk]

Re "brownness" Christians, and gayness: the black and hispanic Obama supporters that voted to put the kibosh on gay marriage in California must just make certain peoples' little heads explode with cognitive dissonance!

[s.ketch]

People do fight if they're called a N-- or if you do a Mom joke. Just because it's not advertised in News like a Muslim committing a crime is, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I think you're falling for the western media bias against Muslims, unknowingly.

This. This right here.

If that's what you assumed was going on in this thread, then I apologize. There are civil ways to react to hate speech, taking the law into your own hands is not one. If strolled over to MLKJr Blvd and started calling people Nig-ers and got shot, it's still murder. It's not like they're gong to say "Oh well he was spouting hate speech, it's okay to shoot people for that." So it's not just picking on Muslims. It's not "Oh hey let everyone else off easy for murder but we're really going to stick it to the Muslims!" Plus there's at least one person who's for the free speech side of things and they're from South Africa. I wasn't aware Sean Hannity had such a big influence there.

I don't really see the point in searching the web for cases that don't pertain the the subject of this thread though. I mean we could talk about what happened to someone when they said something stupid and got their ass beat but it's not really relevant. Using Muslims as an example in a thread based on an event that pertains to Muslims isn't some weird media bias.

[squidmonk3j]

Cartoonist Lars Vilks House Aflame in Assassination Attempt

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/a...n-attempt.html

[Brendan N]

Cartoonist Lars Vilks House Aflame in Assassination Attempt

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/a...n-attempt.html

This may just be the catalyst in me changing my mind about this idea being too childish. It may well be, but I see few more mature alternatives.

I wasn't aware Sean Hannity had such a big influence there.

who?

But really - can we please stop trying to make ethnicity, religion, race, nationality or religion part of the argument? They're NOT. Not even remotely. The fact that I'm from SA and others are from USA has absolutely zero to do with the argument.

BTW, has anyone bothered to read the wiki entry on this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depictions_of_Muhammad

According to that, (and as already stated in this thread) depictions of Muhammad are forbidden primarily to prevent idolatry. To prevent people from worshiping the picture rather than the actual concept. This is not so widespread, and if you scroll down you'll see many depictions of Muhammad in the entry. Some Muslims are fine with respectful depictions, others not so. They can't even reach an agreement among themselves. To me, it's rapidly becoming clear how fucking ridiculous this is.

And it poses an interesting question: does anyone here really believe this type of violence will go away when everyone stops drawing Muhammad or criticizes Islam? No, Islam will find something else it wants you to surrender. And once you start, where do you stop?

Go draw Muhammad.

[NoSeRider]

What the hell are you guys arguing about?
People are just fucking insane in the membrane. It's that simple.

[Slash]

That too has been doctored. Here is the original:

"I love booty zionist juice"


Thats a weird fetish..

[Angel Intheuk]

What a complicated and volatile subject, having just read this entire thread I feel like my brain is about to melt out my ears.

[LORD M]

Lars Vilks chatting with the readers of a swedish newspaper, answering lots of questions. He says a lot of things that makes sense and makes me cheer on him even more. Translated through "google web page translator".

I think people here should read a bit on why he did what he did.


http://translate.google.com/translat...na&sl=sv&tl=en