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

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Spanky
So if an artist that was funded by the NEA depicted Mohammed covered in Shit and displayed it in a museum (like was done with the Christ in piss) do you think that should be allowed to happen? Would the fact that there were riots through out the muslim world effect your decision?

(A) What do you mean by _should_ be allowed to happen? I don't think it could be legally prohibited in our country. I don't think it should be legally prohibited.

(B) At the same time, I'd think it was stupid, lousy art, and a bad idea. I'd also think that the artist and museum, by making it more difficult for Muslim governments to cooperate with us -- were doing our diplomacy, foreign policy, and national security a grave disservice.

S_A_M

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by the Vicar of Piss Christ
And if any of the jihadi speech haters want to find me I will be at the Brickskeller tomorrow night. I will be the guy with hat below drinking multiple Carlsbergs~

Sure you're not in Detroit?

Anyhow, I was wrong, drinking Carlsberg really is a sacrifice for your cause. Your toilet will hate you in the morning.

S_A_M

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Sure you're not in Detroit?
S_A_M

when I sock you can tell because it is the best sock ever.

[the Vicar of Piss Christ]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Sure you're not in Detroit?

Anyhow, I was wrong, drinking Carlsberg really is a sacrifice for your cause. Your toilet will hate you in the morning.

S_A_M

Outing me? Where are the Mods with censorship now? RT? Ty? Penske?

I just bought Legos on-line to support the Danish.

This is promotes multiculturalism, ik?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man

1) "That said, there are a whole lot of Muslims, including American Muslims, who aren't reacting violently, but are saddened and/or offended by what seems to be an equally primitive desire to shove a stick in their eyes."

2) (I think you) "would be a little more sensitive to the religious sensibilities of other devout believers."

Then you said

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man

I am not offended and saddened by the Mohammed cartoons either -- did you think I was?


S_A_M

These statements seem contradictory to me. You were clearly not happy with such cartoons because of "what seems to be an equally primitive desire to shove a stick in their eye". And the posting of such pictures was not "sensitive" to "other devout believers".

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
(A) What do you mean by _should_ be allowed to happen? I don't think it could be legally prohibited in our country. I don't think it should be legally prohibited.

(B) At the same time, I'd think it was stupid, lousy art, and a bad idea. I'd also think that the artist and museum, by making it more difficult for Muslim governments to cooperate with us -- were doing our diplomacy, foreign policy, and national security a grave disservice.

S_A_M

a) Do you think newspapers when they were discussing the Christian blasphemous objects (Christ in Urine and Mary with feces) should have not shown a picture of such objects when they were dicussing them because it would offend millions of Christians.

I think they should have included such pictures.

b) Should newspapers in the above should not show the pictures being discussed because it would offend millions of muslims?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Duly noted, although do you think Ty will find that to be a cautionary deterrent or an incentive?

Well he now has a chance to get rid of me forever. He just needs to delete one picture "so as not to offend".

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Why would you do something that you know will be horribly offensive to millions of people (violent lunatics and non-violent saintly sorts alike), just to show that you can, when everyone already knows that you can?

Just because you can do something, or have the right to do it, doesn't mean that you should. I think the reprints were misguided at best, because there really is no larger principle at stake here.

If there were actually laws barring their publication, or if the editors actually lived ina country with an oppressive majority-Muslim population, then doing so might be an act of courage, and a blow for free speech. Those papers also would mostly not have done it in that case.

Given that there are no such laws, and that the publication bears no adverse consequence for the publishers/editors, it means nothing.

Your last sentence says it all. The point of the re-publication was essentially a big "F-You" or "Nyah-Nyah!" to all Muslims everywhere. "Your laws don't apply here and you can't stop us, and you can't scare us, and we'll say whatever we like, so there!!"

Well, that will show them. Nice.

S_A_M

Because these people are fucking savages, and if need be, they should be dragged kicking and screaming into the 15th century (and hopefully a few beyond that).

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man

(B) At the same time, I'd think it was stupid, lousy art, and a bad idea. I'd also think that the artist and museum, by making it more difficult for Muslim governments to cooperate with us -- were doing our diplomacy, foreign policy, and national security a grave disservice.

S_A_M

I'm generally pragmatic and agreeable to the path of least resistance. But in this case, I think we need to force these regressive vermin to behave like sensible people. Nobody has the right to burn cars over some fucking ink drawing of some 6th Century "prophet." We should not tolearte that sort of infantilism from anyone, anywhere. And we should let these people know that they will be secularized, and behave someday like civilized people. Islam has to get over its third rate status, which is its own fault, due in large part to its regressive tenets. These shit arguments in favor of "accepting Islam's cultural diversity" are exactly that. There's a line where you have to say "No, treating women like shit, believing in silly voodoo garbage and demanding your people behave like they're in a 12th century caliphate is not culture." Strict Islam is not a culture. Strict Islam is a form of oppression and a fount of illiteracy. We should take the bastards on, head on.

We're only demanding they be civilized. Is that too much to ask? How the hell can we shrink from that obligation?

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
when I sock you can tell because it is the best sock ever.

SEF was a masterpiece.

Upon consideration, I had already decided the Vicar was probably not you. Sounds more like our former friend with the "spectacular" breasts coming our of retirement after having Club's baby.

OTOH, who cares?

S_A_M

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by the Vicar of Piss Christ
I just bought Legos on-line to support the Danish.

No Western parent can boycott Legos. If that is the test, I too stand with our Danish brothers!

I might skip that set, though, until the kids are older.

(But why do you stand with them? They are kind of pussies, aren't they? Their government apologized for the cartoons.)

S_A_M

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Spanky
These statements seem contradictory to me. You were clearly not happy with such cartoons because of "what seems to be an equally primitive desire to shove a stick in their eye". And the posting of such pictures was not "sensitive" to "other devout believers".

(a) I am particularly not happy with the re-publication of such cartoons. There is a difference.

(b) I said/meant that I thought that Christians on the Board who were apparently offended by the scat-themed artwork involving Christian symbols -- of which there are a few (I recall Slave, Diane, etc.) -- would not be rushing to post stuff that they know deeply offends folks of other faiths.

Instead, the attitude seemed to me to be more -- "If we have to put up with it, so do you. So, Fuck You!" if that is the attitude, its a little childish.

S_A_M

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Board:

FYI, I still moderate the board, remotely, albeit in retirement.

I have been emailed by an anonymous poster who has requested that I delete certain posts and/or portions of posts that show certain offensive "political cartoons". I am not going to do so yet as it offends my notions of open forum, but will consult with my co-mod Ty and deliberate on the appropriateness of such action.

Please feel free to email me with any input.

Thanks,

penske

I will never post here again if you delete them.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Spanky
a) Do you think newspapers when they were discussing the Christian blasphemous objects (Christ in Urine and Mary with feces) should have not shown a picture of such objects when they were dicussing them because it would offend millions of Christians.

I think they should have included such pictures.

b) Should newspapers in the above should not show the pictures being discussed because it would offend millions of muslims?

I probably would not do so in either case. A written description is more than enough to get the necessary information across (i.e. "a crucifix submerged in urine" or "an image of the Prophet with a bomb in his turban"). OTOH -- the decision to publish them is not irrational.

That said, I'm not sure that the "should" is precisely the same because, as you know, the contexts and consequences are different for reasons to which I have alluded.

S_A_M

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Because these people are fucking savages, and if need be, they should be dragged kicking and screaming into the 15th century (and hopefully a few beyond that).

Auditioning to replace Bolton at the U.N.?

S_A_M