InaniTy
 

Does this mean we can have the make up sex?

InaniTy
 

Ty's people have no time for bother with consistency or definitions. Is easier to make up the rules as he all goes along.

John Kerry was catholic and aginst abortion, but supported abortion rights and then ate communion wafers. When confronted with contradictions he did not care. Spank, have you been to DU?

InaniTy
 

This is not mainly correct; its utterly, unassailably correct, in every regard.

InaniTy
 

Uh, uh... you went a step too far. There are degrees of "wrong." Offending people does not fit in the same pantheon of "wrongs" occupied by violence and censorship. Offending people is something we are all allowed to do in free society. It sits at the very core of freedoms which make a democracy what it is.

The debate here is whether a free society should retreat from free speech because it offends the religious notions of fringe lunatics. The answer to that question is always, unequivocally, no.

InaniTy
 

2. Sometimes offending people is a moral imperative. If artists aren't offending people they are not doing their jobs. If Hollywood isn't offending Jerry Fallwell and Pat Robertson they aren't making movies worth seeing.

InaniTy
 

Question to Ty- put aside the original publication of the cartoons, for purpose of this question I give you that was intended solely to piss people off-

but the reprints- they are newsworthy aren't they? I hear the muslim world is on fire over the cartoons, I wonder what the fuss is about- I want to see for myself. the reprints are to inform the public.

Do you agree the reprints were okay? if you were the editor would you reprint?

InaniTy
 

Really, there are two issues here.

The underlying issue is that a free society should not be cowed into curtailing offensive speech just because some lunatics say it offends them.

The Left can't argue with that position. So it instead raises a second issue, trying to change the debate into one about whether it is wise to enflame lunatics, or whether its meanspirited or "wrong" to knowingly insult another's religion - a whole other issue.

The problem with avowed lefties and righties - which I noted at the outset of this debate - is that they'll never concede anything. When shoved into a corner on an issue of absolute principle (which this is), they'll do what they did here - change the subject.

When really beaten, they'll argue absurdly that a bedrock principle of democracy cannot be absolute. Sorry, freedom of speech trumping the sensitivities of the audience in a free society is absolute. If Radicals don't like the cartoons, they don't have to look at them.

InaniTy
 

I wonder if Ty and SAM take the same position in regard to people like Robertson and Falwell, who continually call for boycotts of companies which publish anti-Christian material? I notice the left is selective in whom it says we should take pains to avoid offending. The Radical Islamists' complaints aren't much different that the complaints raised by radical Christians here for years? Why is it that I've never heard the Left decrying our press for provoking crazy Christians here?

My suspicion is that, at its core, the Left always, subconsciously, has to take the side of the underdog, or the group railing against the established order. They're a funny lot in that regard. They seem to have some odd guilt that forces them to sympathize with the outcasts. I'm actually fascinated by them. I quiz my lefty friends constantly to try to find out where the dislike of "the system" comes from. I've found many seem to have quasi-conspiracy theorist leanings. They seem to really believe there is a group of greedy white men running most things. And they want to rebel against this fantastic Star Chamber they've created in their heads.

InaniTy
 

Ok, I'm with you on the basic issue here. The cartoons were in bad taste, but so what. If the Muslims don't like the cartoons, then tough shit. I don't like people blowing things up and killing people for being offensive. At least until such time as I get to do it to people I find offensive.

On the other hand, let's not go overboard. The world is pretty much run by a small group of greedy white men. They tend to stack the deck in their favor and pass out just enough opportunity to keep the underclass from rising up in enough numbers to actually do anything. I know they exist, and so do an awful lot of us lawyer types, for the simple reason that we get paid much better than fry cooks to do their bidding and make sure that the systems stays within their control while appearing neutral and impartial.

I would now proceed to make a bunch of stupid, simplistic, overly broad generalizations about "the Right," but that's gotten boring as all Hell.

InaniTy
 

I agree completely with everything you say here.

You and I apparently think "free speech" mean different things here. I don't see a threat to free speech here, or anyone proposing that we retreat from free speech.

InaniTy
 

I think that's a hard one. For this whole debate, I've taken at face value a sort of simplistic view that the depiction of Mohammed is offensive per se, but if I were an editor, I'd want to know more.

Western media won't show people being beheaded, partly out of a feeling that it's offensive to a lot of people, including the family of the victim. A lot of people would watch the videos, and I suppose you could say that they would want to see for themselves. I don't recall a lot of people suggesting that free speech was somehow threatened by this self-censorship in the face of violence. (Although a few people here said something like this, as I recall.) Back then, not being intimidating apparently meant that we had to restrict what you all are calling free speech. Similarly, American media does not show graphic footage of what happens to people during war, for reasons of taste. That self-censorship is seen as necessary during wartime, not as a threat to the expressive values our society holds most dear. All of this makes me think that what's motivating people about this cartoon flap is the desire to do the opposite of whatever the Islamists want, rather than some abstract commitment to ideals of free speech.

I think a better way to respond would be to not react to them so much.

InaniTy
 

I don't see any reason for you to call Christians "crazy," and I think you should cut it out. As a Christian, I think this borders on the offensive.

As I've said elsewhere, just because you think that a Danish newpaper made a bad editorial decision doesn't mean you take the side of the people who were killing and torching embassies.

InaniTy
 

ummm no. The Jew controls the world, and the Jew is the devil- and not a white man.

Jewish woman got the nice boobies though.

InaniTy
 

ETA oh, whatever, I'm done with this. Praise be Allah.

InaniTy
 

That appears to be the view of the moderate masses in the Middle East, whom people like Tyrone coddle. This cartoon sums it up.......




http://www.muhammad-cartoon.com/albu...s/20060204.gif

InaniTy
 

I'd best not, there comes a time in a man's life when he just _has_ to start keeping his promises.

S_A_M

P.S. Spanky, you don't even know the name of my political party, why should I trust your Merriam-Webster definition of blasphemy?

The whole thing was premeditated?
 

Does anyone know if this is how it happened? This is from Ann Coulter so I am very sckeptical to its accuracy.
_________________________________________________
"The culture editor of a newspaper in Denmark suspected writers and cartoonists were engaging in self-censorship when it came to the Religion of Peace. It was subtle things, like a Danish comedian's statement, paraphrased by The New York Times, "that he had no problem urinating on the Bible but that he would not dare do the same to the Quran."

So, after verifying that his life insurance premiums were paid up, the editor expressly requested cartoons of Muhammad from every cartoonist with a Danish cartoon syndicate. Out of 40 cartoonists, only 10 accepted the invitation, most of them submitting utterly neutral drawings with no political content whatsoever.

But three cartoons made political points.

One showed Muhammad turning away suicide bombers from the gates of heaven, saying "Stop, stop — we ran out of virgins!" — which I believe was a commentary on Muslims' predilection for violence. Another was a cartoon of Muhammad with horns, which I believe was a commentary on Muslims' predilection for violence. The third showed Muhammad with a turban in the shape of a bomb, which I believe was an expression of post-industrial ennui in a secular — oops, no, wait: It was more of a commentary on Muslims' predilection for violence. "
_________________________________________________
Was there a contest? Were these three selected? Anyone have a clue?

InaniTy
 

I have to give you that one.

InaniTy
 

Constitutional Law is not a specialty of yours, is it?

S_A_M

InaniTy
 

You edited out the "2" to my post. Does that mean the make-up sex is off?

Good article in the NYT about how Arab governments got people worked up. Not sure how the timing of this relates to the other thing I linked about the Haj.

InaniTy
 

(a) As to the issue of the wisdom of offending the religious sensibilities of the Christian right -- give me a specific example and I'll let you know if I think it was a good idea to publish it.

(b) In my view, the comparison don't quite work -- because provoking the Christian right in this country does not endanger our national security or interfere with the stated aims of our foreign policy (i.e. the WOT) -- except arguably by causing them to band together to elect Republican candidates.

[Remember, I am one of the cowardly appeasers who (in my last 6-7 posts on the subject) framed the issue of re-prints in terms of whether it was smart/helpful to our foreign policy.]

(c) You talk about how much your shoes cost, don't you?

S_A_M

InaniTy
 

abortions provoke born agains to kill doctors- why not chill the abortions? freedom of speech is a much clearer right than privacy, isn't it?

InaniTy
 

and btw, this part of your post shows that your real position isn't anything to do with whether the publication was mean-spirited, you are afraid of enflaming the Islamic masses- better just appease them is your view.

InaniTy
 

Edited out bc I realized I was telling you what was behind your intuition. But...if you can dig your way through the white stuff to get to me, I'm waiting here for you here in my thongs with a bottle of spiced wine.
http://prodtn.cafepress.com/7/46561937_F_tn.jpg

InaniTy
 

I think you just proved Sebby's point

The whole thing was premeditated?
 

A commenter on my blog pointed me to this account.

eta:
Diane -- your mailbox is full.

InaniTy
 

I think you just took one paragraph from my post and stripped it of context. Either that or just just suffer from poor reading comprehension.

Since the first part of my post agreed with Sebby's view regarding the overreaction to the publishing and then republishing of the cartoons, didn't it occur to you that the paragraph you just posted should be taken with a dram of W-A-T-E-R?

Confusion
 

Clarified by Ty. Gracias.

The whole thing was premeditated?
 

This story is basically consistent with what I have heard from other sources. However, I don't think it was a "contest." I think the editor printed all 10 cartoons he received -- to make his point about self-censorship.

He was surely expecting some controversy -- so in that sense it was "premeditated", but I don't think he cherry-picked from the submissions.

S_A_M

InaniTy
 

It would have with most other posters, but it didn't seem like a stretch for you.

more Danish
 

I agree with Hugh Hewitt.

And Slave's going to miss it. Hi club!

InaniTy
 

Shouldn't this post be made 3 days from now?

RT, can you check see if Ty@50 has hacked Wonk's log-in?

more Danish
 

Hola. Haven't been posting much lately. Still trying to get adjusted to new digs, plus I'm saving my energy for the election season.

Mnnnn, Danish
 

Well, the Hewitt article is okay but to me, it doesn't really say more than: "yeah, free speech is good but as part of good strategy - for the wars going on right now and the larger struggle in the Muslim world -- publishing and republishing the cartoons was just stoopid."

Ho hum. A lof of people don't think it was "good strategy", including most of the people on here who argued forcefully that Muslims shouldn't get a break from cartoons merely because of their religion being against this or that or said it was bullshit that Muslims should have been more offended because the cartoons were worse than Piss Christ. (Exception, maybe Less who said something like it's good to prove how badly many Muslims can act (as if we needed to prove that). You should do your own piece on the topic, incorporating some of the things argued here.

[Timely that I watched "Kingdom of Heaven" last night about the battle over Jerusalem between Crusaders and Syria via Saladin. )

Mnnnn, Danish
 

I am ready to get on with "the clash of civilizations."

Mnnnn, Danish
 

See, I'd rather keep fighting with the moderate Moslems against the radical Islamists.

Mnnnn, Danish
 

InaniTy
 

I missed that one. Did you explain why it is that newspapers should make editorial decisions based on what advances US foreign policy?


Next you'll say that they shouldn't publish pictures of soldiers' coffins because that would bring the cost of the war home in too personal a way.

InaniTy
 

(a) Not entirely sure that was the complete context of my post, but I think was arguing that they should have exercised their editorial discretion differently because of the harm to U.S. foreign policy interests -- which in this case are also their own individual and national interests -- whether they are a U.S. paper or a European paper and whether they know it or not.

(b) No. In fact, the government's efforts to remove the opportunity for such pictures is offensive because it minimizes the cost of war, which is (in my view) more harmful in a different way.

(c) Stop being such a snotty bitch, Sidd. This one has you all bent out of shape.

S_A_M