South park creators mock Muhammed, infuriate muslim.

Sock puppet path said:
Do you contend that that is just the way it is so we should sit back and keep our mouths shut?
Click to expand...

Depends on the personal situation. On the internet I am a freedom loving tough guy, but if I were a gay dude in Saudi Arabia, probably I wouldn't kiss my boyfriend on the street...
 
Funny story about Joe:

Last night we saw the ad Al Pacino playing doctor Kevorkian. I commented, "Jack was right".
My wife said "but he was asking for it by pushing too far."
I replied: "so was Rosa Park." My wife said she doesn't want to argue with me anymore...

Guess, did I get laid last night or not??? :)
 
Adstar said:
I wonder how many people will be killed in the world when true muslims see the episode. How many lives do you think your humour is worth athiest? Very expensive laughs me thinks.
Click to expand...
You know, the way you worded this sentence, with athiest as a sort of Title at the end, it reminded me of that line: We have your woman Outlander!

Is it just me, or are 75+ hour work weeks a lot of work? I mean, I'm really really tired. I know some people can do it, but, me, I start to go a little off in the head...
 
Putting another spin on the situation, as long as they don't actually kill the creators, death threats are just free speech....
 
Syzygys said:
Putting another spin on the situation, as long as they don't actually kill the creators, death threats are just free speech....
Click to expand...

Not really

Does the First Amendment mean anyone can say anything at any time? No.
The Supreme Court has rejected an interpretation of speech without limits.

Because the First Amendment has such strong language, we begin with the presumption that speech is protected. Over the years, the courts have decided that a few other public interests — for example, national security, justice or personal safety — override freedom of speech. There are no simple rules for determining when speech should be limited, but there are some general tests that help.

Clear and Present Danger
Will this act of speech create a dangerous situation? The First Amendment does not protect statements that are uttered to provoke violence or incite illegal action.
Click to expand...

from here
 
You are using the First Amandement as reference that doesn't cover the whole Earth, just so you know.
But this underlines my point in this thread, we are having 2 clashing cultures with different set of values. It is like debating with a cannibal on the merits and morality of eating humans... Obviously different set of ethics gives different POVs....
 
Syzygys said:
You are using the First Amandement as reference that doesn't cover the whole Earth, just so you know.
But this underlines my point in this thread, we are having 2 clashing cultures with different set of values. It is like debating with a cannibal on the merits and morality of eating humans... Obviously different set of ethics gives different POVs....
Click to expand...

I use the first amendment as a reference because this is happening in the US and the accepted values in the states is that it is not ok to kill someone for a perceived slight. If they were doing this in Pakistan or SA then they should hold themselves to the ethics of the place but they are not in Pakistan or SA.
 
I was walking around with some Japanese in the mall and one got a little offended with the lamps shaped like Buddha's head with a pole on the base. I suppose Western's fascinated with Eastern "stuff" thought a Buddha head on a pole is cool? She said, what if that was Jesus's head and we were in Japan? Why would someone want a piked head?

Then, ironically enough, I some a little version of one of these "piked Buddha heads" in a friends' house (who actually loves Eastern "stuff"). Which was interesting. I suppose Buddha's image has become so iconic that it didn't seem like a head anymore?

Obviously the Japanese were a little upset. I said they could go talk to the manager of the store or send a letter/email. They didn't worry THAT much about it and on we went. I later sent an email.

See, this is a Grown Up discussion about something that upset some people. It didn't involve any death threats nor did the Japanese take a 2 decade grudge against the store, the people who made the object weren't threatened, the people selling it were fine. The Japanese didn't boycott the store. I'm sure they bought something there and left not worrying about it.


table-lamp4.jpg
 
Looks like this thread has been brought to justice. Just to follow up and finish off Sam's argument, the issue is nothing like a white man running through Harlem yelling racial slurs. If one wanted to use a racial parallel, it might be like a white person laughing at jokes about black people in his own house. Merely another example of the Islamic world trying to force their regulations on our society: whether or not there is an Iraq, or an Afghanistan, or a Palestine, unless Sam can actually tie this outrage to them. The same thing goes on for the Copts in Egypt, with the exception that the Copts are in mortal fear of committing any offense, unlike us. What a Golden Age.
 
syzyg said:
So let's say the South Park boys make cruel fun of the events of 9/11 and the victims. It is pretty safe to assume that they would get death threats from patriot Americans. Would you defend them and freedom of expression the same way as you do against Muslims???
Click to expand...
Ann Coulter did exactly that, IIRC - I don't recall her getting any death threats, at least on that account.

I'm not sure exactly how making fun of Mohammed compares with making fun of actual people, especially victims of crime or tragedy, though. There's a "public figure" clause in the free speech stuff, that seems to apply.

Much less completely fictional characters.
 
iceaura said:
Ann Coulter did exactly that,
Click to expand...

She did shit. She was addressing the widows, not the event itself, get your story straight....

The only guy who did something similar was the professor who called the workers in the building "capitalism's little helpers" or something similar and he did lose his job at the university and I could look it up but I am sure he got threats too.....

Here you go:

"Churchill went further, though. He called some of the financial workers in the towers "little Eichmanns," i.e., agents of oppressive capitalism. This remark, like the rest of Churchill's essay, attracted little attention at the time, but gradually acquired notoriety on the Internet and in 2005 ignited a firestorm of protest. Churchill was fired in 2007, a decision he appealed in court."

Oh yeah, the death threats:

"CNN: The death threats were to?
JHS: Ward Churchill received 100 death threats according to his family. We have had death threats telephoned to the college as well.
CNN: To who?
JHS: To offices on the college.
CNN: But I am saying did you receive a death threat?
JHS: A death threat came to my office.
....
JHS: No -- the decision to cancel was mine and it was made in light of the threats that had been made -- the threats of violence and death threats."

So the college canceled his invitation for security reasons. That is appeasing thugery, right? RIGHT???

http://www.hamilton.edu/news/wardchurchill/jhs_cnn.html

P.S.: Fuck, nobody knows shit on this site....
 
Last edited:
Syzygys said:
P.S.: Fuck, nobody knows shit on this site....
Click to expand...

Starting with you, mostly.

Whatever point you're trying to make doesn't really fit. We aren't talking about 9/11 victims or people insulting your mommy. We are talking about people poking fun at a religious figure and the hypocrisy and immaturity of Muslims for having an issue with it while coincidentally having no issues drawing insulting images of Jews and Christians, marrying and raping teenage girls, strapping bombs around their wastes and blowing up public markets. Talk to me about outrage when you stop being little hypocrites.

~String
 
We are talking about appeasing thugery, I thought. The Ward case is exactly like the SP case. He said something what people didn't like and his life was threatened...

Why is it any different from the SP case? Obviously, you don't know Jack either. :(

P.S.: I was reffering to Iceaura's Coulter analogy that was obviously incorrect...
 
You guys are going about this the wrong way..... Simply deny South Park ever happened. If it works for Muslims then it can work for everyone. :D
 
GeoffP said:
Merely another example of the Islamic world trying to force their regulations on our society: whether or not there is an Iraq, or an Afghanistan, or a Palestine, unless Sam can actually tie this outrage to them. The same thing goes on for the Copts in Egypt, with the exception that the Copts are in mortal fear of committing any offense, unlike us. What a Golden Age.
Click to expand...

Since when did one group of extremist become an entire Islamic world? I didn't hear from officials of 50 plus islamic countries asking not to run this show? did you? If you did, please do share. I am not trying to critique your point, just curious if there were any official statements from Islamic states.
 
The difference being, Jack, that if the "entire Islamic world" is slightly embarrassed by the demands of a few extremists, they are mostly silent about it, whereas one only has to look at this forum alone to form an opinion on the feelings of Americans on various issues, by way of example. Western society is mostly transparent.

Perhaps this sort of thing would gain less credence if more of that silent Muslim majority were more up front about who they really are and how they think.

Perhaps there is something preventing them from being so?
 
The Marquis said:
The difference being, Jack, that if the "entire Islamic world" is slightly embarrassed by the demands of a few extremists, they are mostly silent about it, whereas one only has to look at this forum alone to form an opinion on the feelings of Americans on various issues, by way of example. Western society is mostly transparent.

Perhaps this sort of thing would gain less credence if more of that silent Muslim majority were more up front about who they really are and how they think.

Perhaps there is something preventing them from being so?
Click to expand...

I have a feeling that only people living in USA might know about this issue. If they have some sort of media people they should come forward but then I don't expect them to defend any dick and harry who claims to be an extremist and wants to wage a war against some cartoon. Just like I don't expect all the Catholics to come out and say that they are not "child rapist" or they didn't molest the children. I really hope that there is nothing preventing all the catholics from doing the same thing? I hope you get my point. I think this issue is blown out of proportion, it was a freaking cartoon, people need to get over it but media made it a frenzy, just like what they did with radicals of tea party. I guess it is just good business for all parties.
 
The Marquis said:
Perhaps this sort of thing would gain less credence if more of that silent Muslim majority were more up front about who they really are and how they think.

Perhaps there is something preventing them from being so?
Click to expand...

Just to extend on your point, I work with quite a few muslims, we have a big work force ( about 65000 people ). I don't expect them to defend all the wrong done by individuals in the name of their religion. What is wrong is wrong and it is common sense that most people are not radicals. If I think the way you are thinking then all mormons should tell me that they do not have more than 1 wife, all catholics should tell me that they didn't rape any kids, then if a crime is committed by person of any particular race or religion then I should expect every one to come forward and explain me that they are against it etc etc. Do you see my point? Anyways, I love the show and I think that they have made fun of everyone and pissed of many... so just add one more in a long list of complainers. ha.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top