Iran trys to get holland to ban dutch mp's film about the "violence provoking koran"

[Norsefire]

Fair enough, but please understand that the violence has absolutely nothing to do with the moron and is entirely the problem of the assailant.

It DOES have something to do with the moron. The only way it could be "entirely the problem of the assailant" is if the assailant got violent for absolutely no reason whatsoever, without anything even have occured before.

No, the moron angers and, in this case, specifically WANTS a fight and therefore he is the one who led the assailant to become violent. In my opinion, both should be charged.

 

[Norsefire]

Especially because the moron would just be causing trouble and spreading hatred.

 

[iceaura]

Clearly you are imposing your belief systems on me. Is that just you, or is it a general trend in your kind?

Exactly what "belief system" would that be ? Because I can't think of anything I have advocated imposing on you at all, let alone an entire belief system.

If there were 2000 statues of Buddha and only one copy of an ancient book, would it be alright to knock down a few statues?

If there were 2 million cheap cardboard copies of one Buddhist statue, it would be alright to buy one for ten bucks and destroy it to make a point, yes.
I doubt you could find a single Buddhist - certainly not one in the West - who would kill their neighbor because he made a movie of that.

Its not about money or profusion nor is it a comparison or a competition, though I doubt you will ever understand.

You seem to be missing the point, SAM. It's about respect for hard work and devotion and sacrifice and unique existence, even in those who believe absurdities.

I will accord him the respect I expect him to have for my beliefs.

So you respect him according to his respect for your beliefs. Hmmm. How about if you respect him according to the respect he gives you, never mind the beliefs ?

Once again with the “you” as if i’m the one outside rioting and destroying property. Why do you chuck me in with people that do that?

I'm not. I'm responding to your posts, and chucking you in with people who talk as you do.

Dont let the fact that it was the Christian community requesting the ban in the first place stop you. But piss on my head and youll wake up in a hospital.

Likewise. Unless I' m feeling like tolerating all this "censorship out of respect" BS.

Because, and i know there aren’t that many things in the US which are held “sacred” anymore, if you take something which people hold sacred and devote their entire lives to and they see a member of parliament completely tear it up and burn it and spread lies and hatred about it and them, they are going to be outraged. See, I said outraged.

And then they are going to go right out and validate every one of those lies and re-provoke every bit of that hatred. Why? Because they can't tell the difference between a copy and the thing itself, because they worship an idol -a thing - they hold sacred, because they have the political maturity of junior high school students in the West picking gang symbols and fighting over them.
And their victims - voters - are very possibly going to re-elect that idiot, because they think he's been proven right. Are you sure he hasn't ?

Strange I’ve never seen you actively fight against the banning of - - {list} - -

You haven't been paying attention, then. It's true that such battles are normally fought quietly in courtrooms, but that is because neither side - neither side - riots and murders if they lose.

There are many banned movies and books in the Western world. Why don’t you go and fight the good fight for freedom of speech on behalf of those and stop spouting your anti-Islamist agenda by being opportunistic about the comments made by someone in Iran to the Dutch government about a movie which isn’t even finished yet!

We are responding to threat. We can fight all those other bans in court, and if we win we don't have to call out riot police.

There aren’t any intolerant concepts in it. It would surprise me if he would actually present verses which I and a whole lot of other Muslims have not soundly refuted by now.

Theological refutation is interesting stuff I'm sure, but there's a hell of a lot of Muslims out there exhibiting some pretty violent and rigid intolerance and claiming the Quran as justification. Why should I believe you and not them ?

 

[(Q)]

It DOES have something to do with the moron. The only way it could be "entirely the problem of the assailant" is if the assailant got violent for absolutely no reason whatsoever, without anything even have occured before.

He DID get violent without anything having occurred. That IS the point entirely.

No, the moron angers and, in this case, specifically WANTS a fight and therefore he is the one who led the assailant to become violent. In my opinion, both should be charged.

Your opinion is wrong. The law will see it that way too. The assailant became violent entirely on his own accord.

I would consider your argument if you could provide any legal position that would support your stance. If not, then you are wrong and all that is left is your opinion based on religious ideals and emotion.

 

[(Q)]

As will he who started the fight. Provocation/instigation

The assailant, the Muslim, started the fight by getting violent.

The more patriotic of your nation would disagree.

No, they don't. That is YOUR emotionally charged and ignorant opinion.

 

[S.A.M.]

Exactly what "belief system" would that be ? Because I can't think of anything I have advocated imposing on you at all, let alone an entire belief system.

Clearly, I must only value what you value, and nothing else.

If there were 2 million cheap cardboard copies of one Buddhist statue, it would be alright to buy one for ten bucks and destroy it to make a point, yes.
I doubt you could find a single Buddhist - certainly not one in the West - who would kill their neighbor because he made a movie of that.

Possibly because it is not fashionable to consider Buddhists as violent. However, you may find many Tamils in Sri Lanka who disagree with your notions. I believe they suffer tremendously from Buddhists who think they are the cats paws.

You seem to be missing the point, SAM. It's about respect for hard work and devotion and sacrifice and unique existence, even in those who believe absurdities.

Ah, you mean your values are more important/significant than my values, so its alright for you to destroy what I value.

So you respect him according to his respect for your beliefs. Hmmm. How about if you respect him according to the respect he gives you, never mind the beliefs ?

That is what I meant. I would hardly be according my respect for my neighbor if I told him I had just flushed a copy of his holy book so I could confirm I still had freedom of expression. Or if I supported someone who had.

 

[John99]

Well i like diversity, diversity in htought, in the way we can dress and live. Why is that so bad? And this banging over the head- be like me or else is giving me a headache.

 

[Norsefire]

He DID get violent without anything having occurred. That IS the point entirely.



Your opinion is wrong. The law will see it that way too. The assailant became violent entirely on his own accord.

No, he didn't. I meant on his own accord without any sort of communication/interacton with the other.
Doesn't it strike you as instigation if the video shower SPECIFICALLY WANTS TO SPREAD VIOLENCE AND HATRED?

I would consider your argument if you could provide any legal position that would support your stance. If not, then you are wrong and all that is left is your opinion based on religious ideals and emotion.

Sure, starting a fight is a crime/misdemeaner

 

[Norsefire]

The assailant, the Muslim, started the fight by getting violent.

Yes, but the provoker began the entire incident by spreading lies and hatred, and specifically wanting a violent scene.

No, they don't. That is YOUR emotionally charged and ignorant opinion.

Yes, I am sure that if I went to the most patriotic city in the US, and burned your flag and mocked them, someone would certainly attempt to start a fight.

 

[(Q)]

No, he didn't. I meant on his own accord without any sort of communication/interacton with the other.
Doesn't it strike you as instigation if the video shower SPECIFICALLY WANTS TO SPREAD VIOLENCE AND HATRED?

It is your personal, biased, emotionally charged and uninformed opinion that the video does so.

Sure, starting a fight is a crime/misdemeaner

Most likely, hence the Muslims would be charged for doing so.

 

[(Q)]

Yes, but the provoker began the entire incident by spreading lies and hatred, and specifically wanting a violent scene.

That is once again, your personal, biased, emotionally charged and uninformed opinion. The "incident" begins with Muslims acts of violence. You really need to understand that as it is the law, as well.

Yes, I am sure that if I went to the most patriotic city in the US, and burned your flag and mocked them, someone would certainly attempt to start a fight.

You may burn a flag, there is no law against it. If someone starts a fight with you, they will be prosecuted.

Are you starting to get it?

 

[(Q)]

Especially because the moron would just be causing trouble and spreading hatred.

This may be dealt with from a legal position, if one actually exists. It is certainly not dealt with from an emotionally charged religious position.

 

[Norsefire]

That is once again, your personal, biased, emotionally charged and uninformed opinion. The "incident" begins with Muslims acts of violence. You really need to understand that as it is the law, as well.

No, the confrontation begins when the moron spews out his bullshit and hatred, and it gets violent at the point where the other reacts (rather than using Muslim).

Honestly, if one went into the streets and started being a racist bastard, started cursing out blacks, mexicans, chinese, etc, started burning their flags, started spitting on them..........you don't think anything should be done to him? Anything at all?

You may burn a flag, there is no law against it. If someone starts a fight with you, they will be prosecuted.

Are you starting to get it?

Not in the USA. You can't burn the flag.
Also, sure they'll be prosecuted, but if the person they attacked was spewing out hatred, racism, and offensive bullshit, then yes they should also be prosecuted for hate-speech.

Get it? The person, and in this case the maker of the video, is spreading hatred and WANTS violence.

 

[(Q)]

No, the confrontation begins when the moron spews out his bullshit and hatred, and it gets violent at the point where the other reacts (rather than using Muslim).

That is your personal, biased, emotionally charged and uninformed opinion, which has nothing to do with the law. You are free to lobby the government to change the law to suit your personal, biased, emotionally charged and uninformed opinion.

Honestly, if one went into the streets and started being a racist bastard, started cursing out blacks, mexicans, chinese, etc, started burning their flags, started spitting on them..........you don't think anything should be done to him? Anything at all?

What does the law state? That should provide you with the answer.

Also, sure they'll be prosecuted, but if the person they attacked was spewing out hatred, racism, and offensive bullshit, then yes they should also be prosecuted for hate-speech.

And, not murdered in the street by a knife-wielding, emotionally charged and religiously motivated Muslim.

Get it? The person, and in this case the maker of the video, is spreading hatred and WANTS violence.

Get it? That is your personal, biased, emotionally charged and uninformed opinion that he WANTS violence.

 

[Norsefire]

That is your personal, biased, emotionally charged and uninformed opinion, which has nothing to do with the law. You are free to lobby the government to change the law to suit your personal, biased, emotionally charged and uninformed opinion.[/QUOTE
Um, no........it's just common sense. The confrontation DOES begin when those two or more people start to interact......and that was caused by the moron. The violence began when the others got violent. Nonetheless, BOTH are responsible for their parts.

What does the law state? That should provide you with the answer.

Well, hate speech is illegal.





Not in the USA. You can't burn the flag.
Also, sure they'll be prosecuted, but if the person they attacked was spewing out hatred, racism, and offensive bullshit, then yes they should also be prosecuted for hate-speech.

Get it? The person, and in this case the maker of the video, is spreading hatred and WANTS violence.

[/QUOTE]

 

[iceaura]

Clearly, I must only value what you value, and nothing else.

Clearly you are not paying attention. My objection was to your conditioning your respect for your neighbor on your neighbor's respect for your beliefs, as revealed in his rearranging his own life and art and work to align with them. Do you you not see the asymmetry in that ? The hopelessness of attempting to live freely among people who demand that kind of adjustment ?

Ah, you mean your values are more important/significant than my values, so its alright for you to destroy what I value.

Maybe. It's possible. If you value one of a million cheap, mass produced copies of something (or even the the illusion - the theatrical fake - of such a copy)over the irreplaceable and unique product of decades of work and devotion,
then yes - your lack of respect for those years of work and devotion, your elevation of your own sense of symbolic and secondhand insult to equal status with dramatic and significant injury suffered by others, is inferior to many other people's values.

Not in the USA. You can't burn the flag.

Yes, you can.

Yes, I am sure that if I went to the most patriotic city in the US, and burned your flag and mocked them, someone would certainly attempt to start a fight.

On the other hand, if you stayed home in yoru own city and made a movie of yourself burning a US flag and mocking people in your movie studio, you would not need a police escort to go grocery shopping afterwards.

 

[S.A.M.]

Clearly you are not paying attention. My objection was to your conditioning your respect for your neighbor on your neighbor's respect for your beliefs, as revealed in his rearranging his own life and art and work to align with them. Do you you not see the asymmetry in that ? The hopelessness of attempting to live freely among people who demand that kind of adjustment ?

Maybe. It's possible. If you value one of a million cheap, mass produced copies of something (or even the the illusion - the theatrical fake - of such a copy)over the irreplaceable and unique product of decades of work and devotion,
then yes - your lack of respect for those years of work and devotion, your elevation of your own sense of symbolic and secondhand insult to equal status with dramatic and significant injury suffered by others, is inferior to many other people's values.

Clearly the notion of mutual respect for each other's beliefs is an alien one.

Probably why many westerners fail to understand why it is difficult to explain secular societies that consider it "no big deal" to flush a Quran down the toliet while screeching "freedom of expression" and "freedom of religion"

 

[iceaura]

Clearly the notion of mutual respect for each other's beliefs is an alien one.

Not to me. You seem to miss it, often - comparing respect for your neighbor to his respect for your beliefs was just the latest example.

Probably why many westerners fail to understand why it is difficult to explain secular societies that consider it "no big deal" to flush a Quran down the toliet while screeching "freedom of expression" and "freedom of religion"

Screeching, is it now. Welcome to the wingnut world, SAM - complete with the constant sense of being disrespected and condescended to, the frustrating inability to get people to see that everything is to be taken personally and a matter of one-upmanship when it affects you, and so forth - and visible in the vocabulary of its denizens.

No one is "screeching" freedom of expression, SAM. And Western societies are completely familiar with your arguments here - they aren't strange missives from cultures that still have consciences. We've been down this road, for hundreds of years now, with fundie religionists of various kinds. Secular society is an accomplishment, not a given, and your objections to it are what had to be overcome in its creation, and have to be overcome in its maintenance.

 

[S.A.M.]

No one is "screeching" freedom of expression, SAM. And Western societies are completely familiar with your arguments here - they aren't strange missives from cultures that still have consciences. We've been down this road, for hundreds of years now, with fundie religionists of various kinds. Secular society is an accomplishment, not a given, and your objections to it are what had to be overcome in its creation, and have to be overcome in its maintenance.

Clearly we should all look forward to the day when we can greet our neighbors by ridiculing their beliefs and "educating" them of the superiority of our own.

 

[(Q)]

The confrontation DOES begin when those two or more people start to interact......and that was caused by the moron. The violence began when the others got violent. Nonetheless, BOTH are responsible for their parts.

The confrontation cannot begin until the assailant initiates it with violence.

The victim, who made the film, would be held responsible for answering to bad reviews of the film.