LawTalkers - The babyjesuschristsuperstar on Board: filling the moral void of Clinton’s legacy

Technically not, which I suppose is Ty's argument about the "art".

That said, I shudder to imagine the mental state of anyone who'd like to shove the image of an infant up their rear.

S_A_M

Sidd Finch

02-09-2006 12:04 PM

Have Fun, RT

Quote:

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
I guess I would ask the same question I did in the beginning of the post. What's the solution - who will do the chastising? What would be most effective? Don't you think it would be most effective for followers of Islam to criticize those who hijack the religion for violent purposes?

No. They are too busy protesting a couple of cartoons, printed thousands of miles from where most of those protesting live.

Sidd Finch

02-09-2006 12:07 PM

Have Fun, RT

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
You don't think a political cartoon depicting many muslims inclination torwards violence has no merit. Is this not a current issue? You don't think a cartoon depicting a bunch of suicide bombers lining up in heaven for virgins does not have merit? These seem to be standard political cartoon fare. Do you not like political cartoons? Do you not think political cartoons have merit? Do you think they have no place in political discourse?

Fuck.

Quote:

In Germany in the twenties there was free speech, but much of this speech was avoided because of fear of reprisal. The main argument for not printing these cartoons is fear of reprisal.

People on this board are saying when someone is trying to squelch free speech through intimidation, no matter what the speech is, it should be repeated to show that such intimidation is not tolerated and will not succeed in our society.

Fuck, fuck, fuck.

Quote:

The point is not to stick it in their eye, but to show that intimidation will not work when trying to squelch free speech in the west.

Fuck fuck fuck fuck fuckity fuck fuck fuck.

I hate it when I agree with Spanky.

andViolins

02-09-2006 12:21 PM

Have Fun, RT

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
I understand exactly what you are saying. You are saying that because portraying Mohammed is proscribed by the Koran, but portraying Christ on the Cross submerged in urine (or an image of Mary covered in feces) is not directly proscribed by the Bible (so not I can't cite you a verse) that the portrayal of Mohammed is somehow a higher level offense.

Well, this may not be entirely correct.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editor...l?id=110007934

Tyrone Slothrop

02-09-2006 02:07 PM

Have Fun, RT

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
I wouldn't have printed it originally, but once people started trying to intimidate newspapers from printing such material I think it is important to print.

Not the cartoon in the Danish newspaper -- the "cartoon" in the post you just responded to.

Tyrone Slothrop

02-09-2006 02:14 PM

Have Fun, RT

Quote:

Originally posted by andViolins
Well, this may not be entirely correct.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editor...l?id=110007934

Where oh where is Atticus when we need him?

Also, on this topic see the things I linked to here:

http://allintensivepurposes.blogspot...en-images.html

Hank Chinaski

02-09-2006 02:26 PM

Have Fun, RT

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Where oh where is Atticus when we need him?

Also, on this topic see the things I linked to here:

http://allintensivepurposes.blogspot...en-images.html

fyi the "comment" was not from this Hank, although I have commented there from time to time.

someone named "hank" is posting cooments on this site that are often versions of things I've posted here. It really is creepy.

LessinSF

02-09-2006 04:17 PM

Have Fun, RT

Quote:

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
I hate it when I agree with Spanky.

http://www.sfgate.com/chronicle/pict...adreporter.gif

sebastian_dangerfield

02-09-2006 04:26 PM

Have Fun, RT - or - This Will Break the Board

Quote:

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Like I said . . .

Good Lord, no, he is not infallible, but it is relevant because it suggests that there are good policy reasons to take basically the position I do -- or that, at least, a number of professionals in charge of running our foreign policy seem to think so.

So, you are "indulging" me. You think I have enjoyed this? This whole exchange is a prime example of why I rarely bother to try to engage in extended discussions on these boards. It is not worth the time and effort. If I had Hank's sense of the absurd, I'd try dada too.

Sebby -- you have created a persona on these Boards whose principal concerns seem to be, in no particular order: (a) the quality of your Scotch, (b) the purity of your blow; (c) the size of your bank account; and (d) busting your nut.

You strike your cynical, world-weary, elitist dillettante pose and post a lot of wild, hyperbolic shit in a wanna-be gonzo style. You are occasionally funny, and not always wrong, but there is no reason for anyone to take you seriously on any issue more important than which drink to order.

On this argument specifically, you have repeatedly misstated my position, proudly and knowingly adhered to an absolutist rant, refused to admit the slightest possibility of error, called me names when I disagreed, and never, ever, bothered to address the substance of any concern I raised.

Forgive me if I'm not heart-broken that a man of your apparent intellect and acomplishment considers me a jackass.

S_A_M

No amount of flattery will change my conclusion - you shit the bed in this argument.

Secret_Agent_Man

02-09-2006 04:34 PM

Have Fun, RT - or - This Will Break the Board

Quote:

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
No amount of flattery will change my conclusion - you shit the bed in this argument.

I accept your apology.

S_A_M

sebastian_dangerfield

02-09-2006 04:44 PM

Have Fun, RT

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
You are being completely hyperbolic. I'm not saying the speech in question should be banned. I'm saying that editors -- think about why they're called that -- should use their discretion to avoid offending people for no reason.

The Mohammed cartoon is the sort of thing people print in a free society.

Christians don't burn down art galleries that show Piss Christ. Jews don't firebomb cities in response to skinhead marches.

That Islam selfishly (actually, childishly, regressively and embarrassingly) has a heightened sensitivity, doesn’t mean an editor owes it a special duty. It should be treated the same as Judaism and Christianity. No Jew or Christian would flip if a cartoon of Moses or Jesus with a bomb on his head were printed, and no Muslim should be allowed to do so (or worse, burn cars and firebomb buildings) because such a picture of Mohammed were printed.

Islam wants special rights/treatment which the rest of society doesn’t get. Bullshit on that.

Tyrone Slothrop

02-09-2006 04:58 PM

Have Fun, RT

Quote:

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
The Mohammed cartoon is the sort of thing people print in a free society.

Christians don't burn down art galleries that show Piss Christ. Jews don't firebomb cities in response to skinhead marches.

That Islam selfishly (actually, childishly, regressively and embarrassingly) has a heightened sensitivity, doesn’t mean an editor owes it a special duty. It should be treated the same as Judaism and Christianity. No Jew or Christian would flip if a cartoon of Moses or Jesus with a bomb on his head were printed, and no Muslim should be allowed to do so (or worse, burn cars and firebomb buildings) because such a picture of Mohammed were printed.

Islam wants special rights/treatment which the rest of society doesn’t get. Bullshit on that.

Maybe Islam doesn't want to be treated like it's one big indistinguishable mass of violent Arabs. Why don't you ask it?

Hank Chinaski

02-09-2006 05:20 PM

Have Fun, RT

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Maybe Islam doesn't want to be treated like it's one big indistinguishable mass of violent Arabs. Why don't you ask it?

maybe someone should tell Islam that if it wants friends, it should be friendly.

Tyrone Slothrop

02-09-2006 05:31 PM

Have Fun, RT

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
maybe someone should tell Islam that if it wants friends, it should be friendly.

I thought of that, but whenever you see Islam on the TV, it's angry, and throwing rocks or Molotov cocktails or something.

Hank Chinaski

02-09-2006 05:35 PM

Have Fun, RT

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I thought of that, but whenever you see Islam on the TV, it's angry, and throwing rocks or Molotov cocktails or something.

Then maybe it's still angry from last time- maybe it's not the cartoons at all?

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:50 PM.

Page 238 of 334

238

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page