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

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Then maybe it's still angry from last time- maybe it's not the cartoons at all?

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.

[taxwonk]

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.

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

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
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.

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.

[original Hank@judged.com]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
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.

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

[Secret_Agent_Man]

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.

Damn liberal media!

S_A_M

[Sidd Finch]

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

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

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by taxwonk

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

I thought it was the Jews.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Not "a." That one.

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

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Turns out, yes.

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?

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
That question is about as good as asking whether a painting of a woman has merit? Are we talking about the Mona Lisa? There are plenty of paintings of women that aren't hanging in the Louvre.

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”.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
No, I do like political cartoons. No, I do think many political cartoons have merit. No, I think they have some place in political discourse.

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.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
If that was the point of running the cartoons the very first time, I missed it. Some Danish editor had clairvoyance, and knew that if he ran these cartoons, people would get agitated and some would threaten violence, and -- knowing that -- he decided that failing to run the cartoons would be bowing to the threat of future violence. No intimidation!

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.

[Spanky]

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

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I don't recall saying that, either. Jesus Christ, what is wrong with you?

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

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I'm saying that editors -- think about why they're called that - should use their discretion to avoid offending people for no reason.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop I didn't think these cartoons have much merit to them. Other than as a poke in the eye with a sharp stick,

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I wasn't offended by Serrano. I'm sure others were, but I'm not sure I understand the basis for their offense, , other than that they felt disrespected and marginalized. That's a little different than a situation where the very act of depicting God (or G-d, as some of my MOT friends call him) is blasphemous.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I understand why (some) Christians take offense. But it doesn't have to do with Christian doctrine, so far as I know. Want to cite chapter and verse to me?

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Let's stick to Christianity. What makes that blasphemous?

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I am not assuming anything. I am a Christian, and I'm telling you what I think. I haven't said others Christians aren't offended, or shouldn't be offended. .

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Many people -- including you -- are just being dense when you keep throwing "free speech" in my face here. I am all for free speech. I do not think the Danish government should be able to prevent Danish newspapers from running offensive cartoons. And I would think that there is a problem in the Danish newspaper market if Danish Muslims had the economic clout to ensure that no Danish newspapers articulated certain ideas.

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?)

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop This tactic of hypothesizing some situation, telling me how I would respond, and then telling me why I would be wrong is just dumb and lazy. Stick to what I've actually said. You have a hard enough time with that.

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.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
I thought it was the Jews.

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?

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Spanky
Actually he was crucified which was strickly an Italian (Roman) way of executing people.

Really? Damn.

Originally posted by Spanky
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?

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.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

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

[Tyrone Slothrop]

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

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

muslim inclination towards violence

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

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?

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.

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.

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.