Have Fun, RT
 

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

Have Fun, RT
 

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.

Have Fun, RT
 

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

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

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

I accept your apology.

S_A_M

Have Fun, RT
 

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.

Have Fun, RT
 

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

Have Fun, RT
 

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

Have Fun, RT
 

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

Have Fun, RT
 

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

Have Fun, RT
 

I keep getting the impression that Islam is irrational, and there's just no use talking to it. The only thing it understands is force.

Have Fun, RT
 

That's why Sebby's afraid to ask it if it wants to be treated as one big, violent mass.

Have Fun, RT
 

Islam told me to tell you that you're mistaking it for women. Islam is just like the Italians that way.

p.s., The Italians are the ones who really killed Christ you know.

Have Fun, RT
 

Mentiroso! Este es tu, pero soy el originale! The real deal amigo!

Have Fun, RT
 

Damn liberal media!

S_A_M

Have Fun, RT
 

It puts the lotion on its skin, or else it gets the hose again....

Have Fun, RT
 

I thought it was the Jews.

Have Fun, RT
 

So what makes "this" cartoon depicting Muslim inclination towards violence so different from other ones?


Not “turns out”. You know as well as I that muslim inclination towards violence was an issue before this cartoon was printed. This cartoon did not make it an issue.

_______________________________________________
I said: You don't think a cartoon depicting a bunch of suicide bombers lining up in heaven for virgins does not have merit?

Oh please: This is not a picture for the Louvre, it is a political cartoon, and the subject of a “woman” is much more broad than the specific subject of suicide bombers lining up outside of heaven for virgins. So are you saying that this particular picture of suicide bombers lining up in heaven for virgins is not good but there could be a political cartoon with the same theme that is good? This one was made by a hack but there could be one that has the same artistic merit as the Mona Lisa? – give me a break. You said that these cartoons had absolutely no merit, and that they were insulting muslims “for absolutley no reason”.



It seemed you didn’t because you said these cartoons had absolutely not merit and there printing serve no purpose. Since they were pretty typical political cartoons, with pretty obvious themes it just seemd to me that you didn't think political cartoons had merit.

The point was a political observation that many Muslims were dying for Virgins in heaven which is a little absurd, and that many of the followers of Mohammed were prone to violence. These were current substantive issues. They had just as murch purpose and merit as most other political cartoons. And it is ridiculous to say they couldn’t forsee the trouble. Not after Rushdie and that Dutch politician getting murdered.

Ty v. Ty
 

I said: Do you really think the points these cartoons were trying to make have no place in the public discourse?

What is wrong with me? Well this is what you said earlier:

Ty v. Ty
 

Have Fun, RT
 

No one has ever said that you would want censorship inscribed in law. What we keep saying again and again is when the media won't print something out of fear of "offending" someone the effect on free speech is substantially the same as passing a law banning it (Did you think I got that wrong? Did you not say that we should not print this stuff because it has no merit and it is offensive? Do I need to get the quotes?)

It's a Festivus miracle! You finally understood what Hank was saying. Just out of curiosity, why do you think I understood what he was saying and you didn't? Especially when I started reading half way through the conversation.

Have Fun, RT
 

Actually he was crucified which was strickly an Italian (Roman) way of executing people. The Jews get a walk on this one. And since Christian doctrine has taught us that the son holds the guilt of his fathers actions (we all carry original sin from Adam eating the Apple), that means, as a son of Italy, you are guilty of killing the savior and the one true God.

How does that make you feel?

Have Fun, RT
 

Really? Damn.

Mea Culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa!

S_A_M

P.S. The statements in your second Ty vs. Ty post aren't actually contradictory.

This Is Interesting . . .
 

Not that anyone cares much anymore . . .

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/02/...eak/index.html

A leaked letter from Fitzgerald to Libby's lawyers says that Libby's disclosure to Judith Miller of classified information on the contents of the National Intelligence Estimate was authorized by "his superiors."

Wonder who that could be?

S_A_M

Have Fun, RT
 

For one, a lot of Muslims seem to attach some importance to the fact that it depicts Mohammed.

I imagine you'd be embarrassed to stereotype a lot of other groups in this way.

I was talking about cartoons that depict Mohammed, and it appears you now are not. Either you misunderstood me, or you are changing the subject.

Well, I guess you misunderstood. I thought they'd weren't particularly interesting, and therefore weren't worth running if they'd offend a lot of people.

Ty v. Ty
 

Tell me you read those four quotes and couldn't figure out what I was talking about.

The point is, Christians may have been offended, but not because of some Christian doctrine.

If you take a representation of a religious figure and put it in urine or dung, chances are, I dunno, pretty good that you're going to offend some adherents of that religion. That's true whether you're talking about Christ, Mohammed, Zoroaster or Mithra. But Moslems have an additional, distinct reason to take offense -- namely, the prohibition on depicting Mohammed at all. The first sort of offense derives from the underlying message. As I understand it, the second sort of offense relates to the means.

eta: When people saw pictures of Serrano's "art," were they offended by:

- what Serrano had done,
- by the fact that he was getting funding from the NEA,
- by the newspaper's paying attention to it, or
- by the newspaper's decision to run a picture of it?

My recollection is that it was the first two. I don't recall anyone complaining about the last two.

Have Fun, RT
 

So I take you think that the U.S. newspapers have an obligation to print all manner of racial and religious epithets (e.g.) to offend people, just to show we still have free speech in this country?

C'mon Spanky -- you don't believe what you're saying here. You already said that if you were the Danish editor, you wouldn't have run the cartoon the first time around.

Have Fun, RT
 

Well, they need to get over that. But if they must hold onto their parochial beliefs, they can behave like the "voodoo" worshippers we have in this country - they can hold boycotts and picket things they don't like. I have no problem with anyone making a foolish spectacle of himself, so long as he's not burning cars or inflicting violence on people.

Ty v. Ty
 

David Brooks wrote an excellent piece a copule of days ago in the NYTimes Opeds in which he explained perfectly why these "people" taking such offense to this cartoon are absurd and opportunist and really working toward a much deeper agenda. You should read it. It's well reasoned and would probably require you at least an hour of mental gymnastics and creation of warped arguments to refute.

Have Fun, RT
 

Say a newspaper printed an article that in Eskimo communities woman are often mistreated. Say an Eskimo got really pissed off and then killed the author of the article. (captioned for Ty: this happened in Europe but turn Eskimo into Islam and newspaper into movie).

Say that a climate of fear of offending was taking over after this murder- does that perhaps make it a little more acceptable to publish something that is intended to offend Eskimos to show we won't be cowed?

Again, Mohammed with a head-bomb turning into guys bombing stuff shows that maybe the cartoons aren't that fair off.

Ty v. Ty
 

You should read my blog, where I posted a link to something on this subject even before Brooks ran his column.

Have Fun, RT
 

How come it's the guys who always act so tough who keep talking about how important it is to prove that they aren't afraid? Why not just not be afraid? If you let the terrorists into your head like that, they will have won. If you want to show you're winning, ignore them.

It's what I tell my five-year-old too.

Oh the irony!

Looks like that cartoon of Mohammed as a pedophile was a hoax. (Actually, until I saw this, I didn't realize anyone was taking it seriously.)

Have Fun, RT
 

this smacks of when Jimmy Carter mentioned how daughter Amy was really afraid of the bomb during a debate with reagan. It showed america the keys were in the wrong guy's hands. thank god.

Have Fun, RT
 

You're old.

Ty v. Ty
 

You should read mine. Lots of sexy adventures.

Ty v. Ty
 

It sounds ribald and witty. Sign me up.

Ty v. Ty
 

Send me your blog.

Another threat to free speech in Europe! I assume all of you who went apeshit about the Danish cartoons will be buying flying to the World Cup to make like Basil Fawlty.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/grap...16/ngerm16.jpg

Someone's got to show Germany that we won't be intimidated, right?

You look at the Sun for the political articles? or is this just in case the wife finds the links in your history?