|
Originally Posted by Skexis
Messages, like the political cartoons, like the complicity of some of the news organizations that printed the cartoons, do not always have their intended effect, nor does the person on the receiving end always understand implicitly what was meant in the first place. We are all witnesses to that fact. I am advocating patience, not submission.
|
To quote Inigo Montoya, "I do not think that word means what you think it means." In reference to patience, that is. What you're describing as patience fits the dictionary definition of submission.
|
Originally Posted by Skexis
So, let's say you laugh in my face when I call you a dirty name, or tug on your pigtail, or steal your pencil, or whatever you want to equate this to. I really don't care, as long as you acknowledge that the religious undertones of this dispute do, in fact, matter, so it's not as simple as "ignoring it." So anyway, I keep doing it. And doing it. And making sure that you know that I am doing it. In fact, I make sure everyone else knows I'm doing it, and that you can't stop me even if you tried.
|
Wanna bet? Given your example, it sounds like the setting would be in a school, correct? In that case, I report you to the teacher, and you get a recess taken away. To use a proper Fullmetal Alchemist term here, I'd consider it "equivalent exchange". You keep it up, you keep getting punished. Eventually, you either get it through your head that you need to cut it out, or I start laughing at you for being a dumbass and getting all your recesses taken away.
Doing things your way, I would grab you by the collar, push you against the wall, and say "Leave me alone or I'm gonna bash your head in with a brick!", and you stop out of fear of retribution. Is that acceptable behavior? Hell no!
|
Originally Posted by Skexis
Let's be honest here. Your solution is to continue bullying Islam as a whole until they see the light or you send them to it.
Does this strike you as somewhat odd and egomaniacal, or are you so committed to the prospect that actions do not have moral significance
|
Who is doing more bullying here? People making fun of others via cartoons, or people threatening to blow other people up in response? I'd say the latter myself . . .
Oh, and as for actions having moral significance, I've never said they don't. I'm saying
words don't have moral significance. I know a lot of women will turn red if you call them cunts, but me, I would just return the favor and call you a jackass. Eye for an eye. You call me a name, I call you a name,
I don't decapitate you and feed you to rabid monkeys. Making cartoons with a message, that's words, not actions.
|
Originally Posted by Skexis
that you think anyone should be able to do anything as long as it doesn't break section 38-C of statute 411 of California penal code?
|
Hahaha, don't get me wrong. I may work in
a branch of law enforcement, but that doesn't mean I'm a gung-ho legalist. There are plenty of laws I disagree with. Heck, some laws I disagree with so much that even if I do witness the law being broken, I do absolutely nothing about it. Granted, that doesn't happen often in my line of work (I'm not a beat cop or a detective or anything, and I don't deal with "mundane" crimes), and a lot of the time it is outside my jurisdiction, but I do have the authority to do
something about it in such cases, and if I disagree with the law, I admit it, I ignore it. I really am disgusted when people in similar lines of work go
so much by the book that they don't see the stuff going on right under their noses; I keep my eyes open for truly important stuff.
So no, I'm not about going by the book, I'm about doing what's right and caring about what should be cared about. People making cartoons thousands of miles away, that's not important, that's a blip on my radar. The people who threaten to blow people up in response, though, that'll get my attention. Giving in because of that possible retribution is, of course, the dictionary definition of submission, and their actions follow the dictionary ddefinition of terrorism. To me, it's that simple.
|
Originally Posted by Wesker
Parker and Stone long ago pushed the limits of what MOST people find acceptable. The problem here is that they did something that a select few violent people find unacceptable. Do you really think most americans give a shit if Mohammad is portrayed in a cartoon? Are you saying most Americans think Jimmy and Timmy beating the crap out of each other in a cripple fight, or jesus being beaten up by the devil or a talking piece of poo are just fine but a cartoon Mohammad, well damn, thats over the line? Why did Comedy central use this as the stopping point. Are they afraid of violent retribution or are they being as politically correct as the rest of the media and granting a special protected status upon islam?
|
Exactly. QFT.
|
Originally Posted by DarkLink2135
Why is it that all of the sudden Mohammed is a hot topic? This is insanely stupid. South Park blasts other religions, and its funny, but all of the sudden Mohammed is over the top? This is stupid.
I define censorship as the following:
Some people are too simple or closeminded to be able to see things from other people's perspectives, so they simply say BAN IT for their own moral conscious.
|
Bingo. Also QFT.