Everybody Draw Mohammed Day

[Alexei]

... huh? lol

[EriCBluE]

... huh? lol

/facepalm /walks away.

[Jugerzz]

If there's any intolerance here, it's by those who do not tolerate another's freedom to say or draw whatever they want to. I'm not being intolerant when i say something that offends another. They're being intolerant when they threaten me with violence or legal sanctions for saying it.

No you have it backwards. I mean think about it. If I come up to you and stab you, are you being intolerant? Repressive of my right to stab you? Really? Don't you think you're just being silly and didn't think this through?

What I think is people of your level of intelligence or lower should stop voting. Our democracy would be a better place for it. How does the first amendment go again? Congress shall make no law prohibiting the freedom of speech or the freedom to stab people on the street? Sounds about right.

First amendment protects freedom of expression. That means that a citizen shall not have his freedom to express themselves hindered in any way unless and until they do something that would take their freedom of expression away (i.e. break a harsh enough law).

You must mean "...take the freedom of expression of others away."

This is the case for many kinds of "extreme" expression - burning flags, collecting plates from nazi germany, harshly disagreeing with governmental actions, replacing flags of USA with flags that say "Foreclosed" on wall street, angry mobs of protesters, and yes, even stabbing someone.

The supreme court has consistently ruled for flag burning being protected under the constitution. It's thoughts like these that worry me about the future.

You cannot conspire to stab someone - that is illegal and grounds for arrest. But until you actually stab someone and draw blood, you have broken no laws and unless it is blatantly clear that that is what you are going to do no officer of the law may stop you from expressing yourself in such a way. Afterwards, however, you will (hopefully) have to deal with the consequences of your actions.

The ridiculously idiotic issue was that you compared the freedom of speech, which according to the founders is an inalienable right found inherently in nature (natural law), with the capacity to murder someone with a knife to make some point about tolerance. No, someone who is taking my life away with a knife is not being tolerant towards me. Goes without saying. And when someone seeks to silence me through violence or legal action is not tolerating or respecting my 'inalienable' right of free speech. It's not difficult to understand.

In the case of drawing the prophet Mohammad, if so many people want to stab you that you need the government to protect you because your sole existence is cause enough to get stabbed, I have no sympathy for you - YOU put yourself in this situation by somehow royally funking up and aggravating people on the scale of millions.

It's the governments funking job to protect it's citizens from the forces of tyranny and oppression. It's their funking JOB to secure those rights dipshit. Royally funking up in this case just means saying whatever the funk I want to. Just because some closeminded religious biggots can't handle it and want to lash out against my freedoms, does not mean my government should not protect me. If you think they shouldn't, then you're a bigger moron than I thought.

And I am against using any taxpayer money to shelter you from the consequences of your actions - let what happens to you be a lesson in civics to all the hate-mongerers of the world.

And what lesson is that? The government, whose sole purpose according to the founders (playing off Locke) was to secure those rights, will not protect you when your exercise of those rights pisses of some intolerant savages? Seriously, don't vote. I mean it.

I also didn't say that this thread should be locked or whatever, because in my meter of things it's not that bad. I mean, if Sumario or someone comes and says that it's very offensive - it should be locked

Nope. It's their problem. When I'm offended by something somebody says I don't make it their problem or demand they censor themselves because my poor little ears can't handle their mouth noises.

Once again, there are rules in play. Methos had the freedom to make such thread (which he clearly exercised), however, it is clearly inconsistent with the rules of this forum.

Having a legal freedom is not the same as having the physical capacity. I have the physical capacity to murder someone I don't like, but the law will make me suffer for it. To have legal freedom means to be free of legal consequence. This thread is not inconsistent with any forum rules.

Therefore Methos should be punished for creating said thread and said thread should be potentially removed for the extremity of it's content.

What extremity, dumbass?

BTW. the lady that drew the original cartoon has since deeply and regretfully apologized for ever doing so and repented for her sins, metaphorically speaking, to Muslims, and in her words, is deeply regretful that so many people took it up as more than just a bad joke. Just a little factoid.

An irrelevant factoid.

but I don't feel like I know enough to judge that. What I am saying is that the people participating in this ridiculousness are behaving like intolerant basically morons.

You really don't know enough, and whenever that's the case it's prudent to shut the funk up.

Take your own advice.

I do. I know a fuckload more about constitutional law than you do. I've had grad level classes about it.

[Jugerzz]

It is precisely in those extreme cases in which the morons of society are offended by what's being said that the bill of rights is necessary. As odd as it sound, this country is as great as it is because the government not only allows KKK members to hold peaceful (although hateful) rallies, but it sends police on the scene to protect them.

[Billy the sumthing]

-Back on topic-


This is an interesting thread and when i see all this taboo images of what we are not suppose to do i wonder to myself how many people here would have the urge to even draw Mohammed d had it not been for the whole scandal that happened? I mean who here in this thread that is supporting this right would have actually thought about drawing Mohammed prior to the incident?

I pose these question only cause i realize that it is you right to draw the prophet if you choose to but would you have chosen to previously... at that point if the answer is no; then aren't you only doing this to offend/oppress Muslims and squelch their freedom of speech/beliefs and not defending your right to free speech?

Not necessarily. It could just be away to say even though comedy central is scared of you, we're not. On the other hand we're anonymous so it really doesn't show anything. I don't think people should stop saying what they think if they really mean it. Even if its racist, I'd rather know someone is racist towards me than hide it and pretend to like me.
Since its anonymous, it seems like its trying to piss Muslims off which is dumb. People don't have the right to attack someone for drawing a cartoon and if some need to be reminded that we're not affraid of them then so be it. On the other hand the Danish cartoonist isn't really in hiding. I saw him in a video wearing all red like a target. So if he's not scared do we really need to provoke? Just thinking out loud in this post. Sometimes I agree with something Alexei told me (hard to believe). That the best thing you can do with terrorist is to ignore them.

[Lucky_d(o.Ob)ie]

-Back on topic-


This is an interesting thread and when i see all this taboo images of what we are not suppose to do i wonder to myself how many people here would have the urge to even draw Mohammed d had it not been for the whole scandal that happened?

Had nothing about the Islamic edict been in the news, this thread would not exist.

This is monkey see, monkey do at it's finest.

[Billy the sumthing]

-Back on topic-


This is an interesting thread and when i see all this taboo images of what we are not suppose to do i wonder to myself how many people here would have the urge to even draw Mohammed d had it not been for the whole scandal that happened?

Had nothing about the Islamic edict been in the news, this thread would not exist.

This is monkey see, monkey do at it's finest.

Well certain Christian and of course Jewish sects don't allow the portrayal of G-d. However it happens all the time and no one is being targeted by it. I can understand Muslims not depicting Mohammed, but why not just leave everyone else a lone? But I guess thats the nature of extremism, involving everyone else in your particular neurosis.

[Alexei]

You must mean "...take the freedom of expression of others away."

I meant what I said.

The supreme court has consistently ruled for flag burning being protected under the constitution.

Yeah no kidding huh?

The ridiculously idiotic issue was that you compared the freedom of speech, which according to the founders is an inalienable right found inherently in nature (natural law), with the capacity to murder someone with a knife to make some point about tolerance. No, someone who is taking my life away with a knife is not being tolerant towards me. Goes without saying. And when someone seeks to silence me through violence or legal action is not tolerating or respecting my 'inalienable' right of free speech. It's not difficult to understand.

Are you stoned? That's entirely not what I said. Where in what you quoted do you see anything relating to tolerance? Obviously someone stabbing you is not very tolerant.

It's the governments funking job to protect it's citizens from the forces of tyranny and oppression.

Not even close! What FOX news commentator did you borrow that line from?

Royally funking up in this case just means saying whatever the funk I want to. Just because some closeminded religious biggots can't handle it and want to lash out against my freedoms, does not mean my government should not protect me.

Depending on the scale of your personal idiocy, I would strongly argue against the use of public funds for your protection from the consequences of your actions. Perhaps it is the "communist" upbringing that I have - that I was taught "socialist" concepts like that actions have consequences and the unjust should be punished speaking.

Having a legal freedom is not the same as having the physical capacity.

Having physical capacity to do something means you have the legal freedom to do it. Laws punish actions, nothing more.

And what lesson is that? The government, whose sole purpose according to the founders (playing off Locke) was to secure those rights, will not protect you when your exercise of those rights pisses of some intolerant savages? Seriously, don't vote. I mean it.

Don't intentionally piss people off. I could have understood accidental intolerance - Muslim culture is different from our own. But the consequences of intentional intolerance should not be taxed on the government. Not to mention that such intolerance is against the rules of this forum, and against "anti-racism" laws.

You probably like to believe that there is a higher purpose to what you are doing, but you are merely the annoying kid at the playground who throws stones at the black children and then runs and hides behind his mommy crying that you were just "trying to share".

Grow some balls and hold yourself accountable for your actions plz?

[Jugerzz]

You must mean "...take the freedom of expression of others away."

I meant what I said.

Nonsense.

The ridiculously idiotic issue was that you compared the freedom of speech, which according to the founders is an inalienable right found inherently in nature (natural law), with the capacity to murder someone with a knife to make some point about tolerance. No, someone who is taking my life away with a knife is not being tolerant towards me. Goes without saying. And when someone seeks to silence me through violence or legal action is not tolerating or respecting my 'inalienable' right of free speech. It's not difficult to understand.

Are you stoned? That's entirely not what I said. Where in what you quoted do you see anything relating to tolerance? Obviously someone stabbing you is not very tolerant.

You were responding to my post about tolerance. I thought it might have something to do with it. I assumed you we were making sense. My fault.

It's the governments funking job to protect it's citizens from the forces of tyranny and oppression.

Not even close! What FOX news commentator did you borrow that line from?

Nice rebuttal. Hurrrr.

Royally funking up in this case just means saying whatever the funk I want to. Just because some closeminded religious biggots can't handle it and want to lash out against my freedoms, does not mean my government should not protect me.

Depending on the scale of your personal idiocy, I would strongly argue against the use of public funds for your protection from the consequences of your actions. Perhaps it is the "communist" upbringing that I have - that I was taught "socialist" concepts like that actions have consequences and the unjust should be punished speaking.

You're an idiot. If a Muslim goes out to kill me because I drew their prophet you think the police should not protect me? That's moronic. I'm going to make this bold so others focus on just how moronic you really are.

Having a legal freedom is not the same as having the physical capacity.

Having physical capacity to do something means you have the legal freedom to do it. Laws punish actions, nothing more.

Again, pure idiocy. I'm not legally free to commit murder just because I can buy a gun, point it in some direction and pull a trigger. Seriously, this is moronic. I don't even know why I'm wasting my time here. I guess it's not cos I'm arguing against you as much as I'm arguing against idiocy. It's frustrating that there's so many of you.

And what lesson is that? The government, whose sole purpose according to the founders (playing off Locke) was to secure those rights, will not protect you when your exercise of those rights pisses of some intolerant savages? Seriously, don't vote. I mean it.

Don't intentionally piss people off. I could have understood accidental intolerance - Muslim culture is different from our own. But the consequences of intentional intolerance should not be taxed on the government.

I can intentionally say whatever the funk I say as long as it doesn't take away another's freedoms guaranteed by the constitution, and the government has an obligation to protect me.

You probably like to believe that there is a higher purpose to what you are doing, but you are merely the annoying kid at the playground who throws stones at the black children and then runs and hides behind his mommy crying that you were just "trying to share".

I'm the guy in the country that was promised a number rights when I agreed to be a citizen and to undertake the obligations that come with it. Dipshit. If you're going to cast some aspersions then do it like a man. Say it directly.

Grow some balls and hold yourself accountable for your actions plz?

lrn2logic

[Acid]

USA Government sux

[Alexei]

You were responding to my post about tolerance.

I was making a point. One that you have yet to grasp I see.

If a Muslim goes out to kill me because I drew their prophet you think the police should not protect me?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tY5x8pF512k

You're an idiot. If a Muslim goes out to kill me because I drew their prophet you think the police should not protect me? That's moronic.

Almost as moronic as repeatedly performing an action so offensive that some members of society would go far out of their way to end your life in retaliation, knowing full well that that would be the outcome of said action for the sole purpose of inciting said anger into said member of society? Yes, I see no reason for you to be a part of any civilized society should you choose to behave as such, and I most certainly don't see why the resources of society should be wasted on the preservation of someone as counterproductive to civilization as yourself in society.

[Jugerzz]

You were responding to my post about tolerance.

I was making a point. One that you have yet to grasp I see.

Your point is the government should only protect those citizens who say unupsetting things. Freedom of speech!...as long as people use it to only say things others agree with.

You're an idiot. If a Muslim goes out to kill me because I drew their prophet you think the police should not protect me? That's moronic.

Almost as moronic as repeatedly performing an action so offensive that some members of society would go far out of their way to end your life in retaliation, knowing full well that that would be the outcome of said action for the sole purpose of inciting said anger into said member of society?

You're right. Only those people who say nice things should be protected.

Yes, I see no reason for you to be a part of any civilized society should you choose to behave as such, and I most certainly don't see why the resources of society should be wasted on the preservation of someone as counterproductive to civilization as yourself in society.

The government should only protect the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of those people it agrees with. Nice.

[Jugerzz]

Having rights in this society means the government is prohibited from enacting laws that violate them, and it has the positive responsibility of protecting them. This means when a force, either foreign or domestic, seeks to kill Americans for example, i.e., destroying their right to life, it should step in to protect them, and when some state, like lets say Arizona, enacts some law that violates those rights, it repeals it...or, it should anyways. This is not claused by, "as long as an individual doesn't hurt the feelings of another by the exercise of those rights," or "as long as what's being said is not mean!" You have the freedom of speech to the extent that it doesn't interfere with another's rights, and that's it. That's the only restriction. You can burn a flag, and the state will not punish you, it SHOULD NOT punish you, and it will protect you from people who will want to harm you for it. You can hold rallies about how some race or gender or sexual preference is bad or a sin or whatever, and the state will (thankfully) allow you and SHOULD protect you in those rallies, and it does.

The whole purpose of entering a civil society and giving up your rights to a central government is because of the promise that it will protect and guarantee you those rights. This nation was founded on this (Lockean) principle.

[Jugerzz]

There's a current of unamerican sentiment going around today ironically enough precisely from those people who think they're the biggest patriots to this country. Don't give terrorists their Miranda rights! Torture people! It's positively sickening. This country's greatest danger is not terrorists or any foreign force. It's people like this gaining influence in politics.

[FireWarrior]

"Sticks and stones may break my bones / But words will never hurt me"



Sticks and Stones (Nursery Rhyme)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sticks_and_Stones_%28Nursery_Rhyme%29

Sticks and Stones is an English language children's rhyme. It persuades the child victim of name-calling to ignore the taunt, to refrain from physical retaliation, and to remain calm and good-natured.

The most common version, as used in that work, runs:

Sticks and stones
May break my bones
But names will never hurt me.

An alternate version is:

Sticks and stones
May break my bones
But words will never hurt me.

This sentiment is reflected in the common law of civil assault, which holds that mere name-calling does not give rise to a cause of action, while putting someone in fear of physical violence does.

Maybe this "children's rhyme" should be taught to adults too.

[Alexei]

You were responding to my post about tolerance.

I was making a point. One that you have yet to grasp I see.

Your point is the government should only protect those citizens who say unupsetting things. Freedom of speech!...as long as people use it to only say things others agree with.

You're an idiot. If a Muslim goes out to kill me because I drew their prophet you think the police should not protect me? That's moronic.

Almost as moronic as repeatedly performing an action so offensive that some members of society would go far out of their way to end your life in retaliation, knowing full well that that would be the outcome of said action for the sole purpose of inciting said anger into said member of society?

You're right. Only those people who say nice things should be protected.

Yes, I see no reason for you to be a part of any civilized society should you choose to behave as such, and I most certainly don't see why the resources of society should be wasted on the preservation of someone as counterproductive to civilization as yourself in society.

The government should only protect the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of those people it agrees with. Nice.

Are you even reading what I'm writing?

[Jugerzz]

Are you going to keep diverting?

[Mayhem]

Holy Macaroni go outside and play and turn your computers off.

[Gon]

Holy Macaroni go outside and play and turn your computers off.

wut.

[Alexa]

What kind of mod are you convincing people to leave your forum

[Gon]

What kind of mod are you convincing people to leave your forum

A half-assed one.

[Scrap Warrior]

I love how the dumbass that started this spelled Muhammad wrong.
I think its illegal for MUSLIMS to make a depiction of Muhammad.
Everyone else, go buck wild.

[strad]

the dumbass that started this

umad?