ChatterBank1 min ago
Just how ridiculous can these 'protests' get?
Isn't there something badly wrong when a cheap crappy video made specifically for the purpose of causing trouble can provoke such knee-jerk outrage. Shouldn't it just be dismissed as the rubbish it is? How thin skinned can these morons be?
People like this don't help ..
http://
Cynical hijacking of the issue for political purposes. It wouldn't surprise me if it was an organisation like his that made the thing in the first place.
People like this don't help ..
http://
Cynical hijacking of the issue for political purposes. It wouldn't surprise me if it was an organisation like his that made the thing in the first place.
Answers
"Just because we as a society do not feel as strongly about our faith as they do does not make us right and them wrong."
I respect the point you're making here, Andy, but I don't think it actually works.
You're right of course - philosophica
I respect the point you're making here, Andy, but I don't think it actually works.
You're right of course - philosophica
15:44 Mon 17th Sep 2012
Sorry andy, but if it's a cultural thing then they need to drag their culture out of the dark ages and mature it a bit. I just hope we don't have to wait another 500 years to happen like we did with christianity.
Are we really going to have to witness this nonsense and 'deal with the fallout' every time someone draws a cartoon, writes a book, or names a teddy bear something that they don't like?
It's a depressing thought.
Are we really going to have to witness this nonsense and 'deal with the fallout' every time someone draws a cartoon, writes a book, or names a teddy bear something that they don't like?
It's a depressing thought.
Factor - I am not honestly sure. As with all protests, some people protest simply to make their opposition to a concept known, and some do it with a specific aim in mind. I am not clever enough to be able to offer a reliable answer on that - like everyone, i am given what I know by the media, and that has its own biases and censorship in place.
ludwig - it's very easy to take the moral high ground and dismiss the Muslim extremists as backward and over-sensitive, but I don't really think the high ground is ours to take.
Just because we as a society do not feel as strongly about our faith as they do does not make us right and them wrong. Cultures cary enourmously around the world, and part of co-existing with other cultures is extending them a right to feel as strongly as they do, even if it is at odds with our own position.
As Mr Blair and Mr Bush will confirm - Westerners are more than capable of forcing their views on other nations by military force, powered by a belief that they are right so to do - even though that right is only in their minds.
Just because we as a society do not feel as strongly about our faith as they do does not make us right and them wrong. Cultures cary enourmously around the world, and part of co-existing with other cultures is extending them a right to feel as strongly as they do, even if it is at odds with our own position.
As Mr Blair and Mr Bush will confirm - Westerners are more than capable of forcing their views on other nations by military force, powered by a belief that they are right so to do - even though that right is only in their minds.
ludwig> This nonsense
This nonsense is there all of the time, and it doesn't need much of an excuse to set it off. Even if nobody in the USA/west was to do anything at all that in any way could be deemed offensive - highly unlikely - then some radical could simply invent or plant a reason, and off we go again.
The problem runs a lot deeper than the film. To blame the film is a bit like blaming the death of one man for the August 2011 riots. (I cite those to show that even in England we can be a bit medieval sometimes).
It's a very tricky problem!
This nonsense is there all of the time, and it doesn't need much of an excuse to set it off. Even if nobody in the USA/west was to do anything at all that in any way could be deemed offensive - highly unlikely - then some radical could simply invent or plant a reason, and off we go again.
The problem runs a lot deeper than the film. To blame the film is a bit like blaming the death of one man for the August 2011 riots. (I cite those to show that even in England we can be a bit medieval sometimes).
It's a very tricky problem!
//it's very easy to take the moral high ground and dismiss the Muslim extremists as backward and over-sensitive, but I don't really think the high ground is ours to take.//
When they think they have the right to kill innocent people, they are backward and over-sensitive - and the high ground is exactly what we should be taking! It's time people stopped making excuses for these people - and it's time the world started saying no!
When they think they have the right to kill innocent people, they are backward and over-sensitive - and the high ground is exactly what we should be taking! It's time people stopped making excuses for these people - and it's time the world started saying no!
// Just because we as a society do not feel as strongly about our faith as they do does not make us right and them wrong. //
You're wrong to assume that people don't feel strongly about their faith just because they don't advocate violence and murder as suitable punishments for people who commit the 'crime' of insulting them.
I'm not religious, but I should imagine that's quite insulting to committed christians, jews etc that might be reading this.
// Cultures vary enourmously around the world, and part of co-existing with other cultures is extending them a right to feel as strongly as they do, even if it is at odds with our own position. //
I'm quite happy to extend them the right to feel strongly about whatever they want to. It's the whole rampage, burning, killing thing I'm uncomfortable with.
But anyway, what you've said works both ways. They need to respect our culture of freedom of speech even if it is at odds with their own position - would you agree?
You're wrong to assume that people don't feel strongly about their faith just because they don't advocate violence and murder as suitable punishments for people who commit the 'crime' of insulting them.
I'm not religious, but I should imagine that's quite insulting to committed christians, jews etc that might be reading this.
// Cultures vary enourmously around the world, and part of co-existing with other cultures is extending them a right to feel as strongly as they do, even if it is at odds with our own position. //
I'm quite happy to extend them the right to feel strongly about whatever they want to. It's the whole rampage, burning, killing thing I'm uncomfortable with.
But anyway, what you've said works both ways. They need to respect our culture of freedom of speech even if it is at odds with their own position - would you agree?
An interview with Salman Rushdie on the BBC today. He was asked if books like "The Satanic Verses" could be published now. He thought not, given the current climate of hysterical over-reaction and calculated and cynical exploitation of this over-reaction by groups like Hezbollah.
He was asked what he felt we could do about this "chilling" effect on criticism and free speech, and he responded that we all needed to be braver. In a democracy that values free speech, we should be allowed to say pretty much anything we like, subject to the usual caveats surrounding hate speech, incitement, etc., and that if we wish to retain this, we need to stand up to those who would wish to stifle that freedom.
He was asked what he felt we could do about this "chilling" effect on criticism and free speech, and he responded that we all needed to be braver. In a democracy that values free speech, we should be allowed to say pretty much anything we like, subject to the usual caveats surrounding hate speech, incitement, etc., and that if we wish to retain this, we need to stand up to those who would wish to stifle that freedom.
// The problem runs a lot deeper than the film. To blame the film is a bit like blaming the death of one man for the August 2011 riots //
I agree. I'm not blaming the film so much as the medieval, ignorant, retarded, facist attitudes of the people involved in the violence and those who condone or encourage it.
The only thing I'm blaming the film for is being the latest in a long line of catalysts to expose those attitudes for what they are. As I said in the OP, the film should just be seen the rubbish it is, and left to languish largely unwatched in the depths of youtube.
I agree. I'm not blaming the film so much as the medieval, ignorant, retarded, facist attitudes of the people involved in the violence and those who condone or encourage it.
The only thing I'm blaming the film for is being the latest in a long line of catalysts to expose those attitudes for what they are. As I said in the OP, the film should just be seen the rubbish it is, and left to languish largely unwatched in the depths of youtube.
naomi - I was at considerable pains to point out that I do not for one moment think that an insult to one's faith should be met with violence - but we must remember that thes are the actions of extemeists, and not the Muslim faith as a whole.
What I am rtying to avoid is tying all Muslims in with this approach, because it is simply not valid. A compariosn would be assuming that all Christians behave like KK members - which they patently don't.
Ludwig's original question appeared to be couchd in pretty general terms, although I assume he was referring to the extremists - but remember, they are just that, extemists, and as such, represent a very small minority of the faith as a whole.
I would not fream of making ecuses for the violence, something again I pointed out in my original post. Violent extrremism is not an answer - but neither is blanket gerneralisation of one of the biggest faiths on the planet.
What I am rtying to avoid is tying all Muslims in with this approach, because it is simply not valid. A compariosn would be assuming that all Christians behave like KK members - which they patently don't.
Ludwig's original question appeared to be couchd in pretty general terms, although I assume he was referring to the extremists - but remember, they are just that, extemists, and as such, represent a very small minority of the faith as a whole.
I would not fream of making ecuses for the violence, something again I pointed out in my original post. Violent extrremism is not an answer - but neither is blanket gerneralisation of one of the biggest faiths on the planet.
// Just because we as a society do not feel as strongly about our faith as they do does not make us right and them wrong. //
You're wrong to assume that people don't feel strongly about their faith just because they don't advocate violence and murder as suitable punishments for people who commit the 'crime' of insulting them.
I'm not religious, but I should imagine that's quite insulting to committed christians, jews etc that might be reading this.
That is not the point I made ludwig.
The Muslim faith does not advocate violence and murder either. The thrust of my point was that there are a far higher proportion of Muslims than Christians who build their lives around their faith, and that point stands.
You're wrong to assume that people don't feel strongly about their faith just because they don't advocate violence and murder as suitable punishments for people who commit the 'crime' of insulting them.
I'm not religious, but I should imagine that's quite insulting to committed christians, jews etc that might be reading this.
That is not the point I made ludwig.
The Muslim faith does not advocate violence and murder either. The thrust of my point was that there are a far higher proportion of Muslims than Christians who build their lives around their faith, and that point stands.
Any excuse will do. If it wasn't some film produced by some unknown Coptic Christian, or some cartoon appearing in an obscure Danish magazine, the activists who disseminate news of it (and it must take some finding sometimes, and some effort:it can't be easy to find Danish flags to burn when you're in some distant country) will find a ready audience who like nothing better than to rage against the US or 'the West' for 'insulting Islam. We should be grateful that it's only a comparatively small percentage who do all this.
Just to be absolutely clear andy, the thin-skinned morons I'm referring to are every person who was, is currently, or is planning to be engaged in some sort of protest against America/the west/the infidels (whoever it is they're protesting against - do they even know?) as a direct result of this film coming to light.
I include in that all those who are calling for or condoning such protests.
I don't know how many of them there are, whether they are all muslims, or how much of a minority it is.
I applaud any muslim who's choosing instead to sit peacefully at home, probably thinking something along these lines - "the film's a disgrace - but this is what happens in a world where free speech is tolerated. We can't blame a whole country or it's people for the actions of a troublemaking individual.
I'll ignore it and satisfy myself with the knowledge that whoever made this film will be dealt with accordingly by his maker in the fullness of time."
I include in that all those who are calling for or condoning such protests.
I don't know how many of them there are, whether they are all muslims, or how much of a minority it is.
I applaud any muslim who's choosing instead to sit peacefully at home, probably thinking something along these lines - "the film's a disgrace - but this is what happens in a world where free speech is tolerated. We can't blame a whole country or it's people for the actions of a troublemaking individual.
I'll ignore it and satisfy myself with the knowledge that whoever made this film will be dealt with accordingly by his maker in the fullness of time."
"Just because we as a society do not feel as strongly about our faith as they do does not make us right and them wrong."
I respect the point you're making here, Andy, but I don't think it actually works.
You're right of course - philosophically speaking, there's no way to guarantee that "we" are in the right, and "they" are in the wrong. But I think you're wrong to assume that this means both positions are equal. If your starting point for debating (let alone resolving) this issue is to assume that all stances are equally valid, then you can guarantee that you will never come to any solution or even be able to say anything useful - because it accepts all priorities and agendas which are affected by the issue at once. You begin with an attitude that is very respectful, but utterly vacuous.
If we want to be able to say anything, or make any kind of coherent response to the ongoing protests - or the large numbers of similar events which have happened in recent years - then we need to have some opening standards and priorities. I would put it to you that the best standard we have is the one posited by Sam Harris: whether or not some behaviours, attitudes or beliefs are conducive to human flourishing.
Now, everyone on this board agrees that violent protest is not conducive to human flourishing.
But is it conducive to human flourishing to have a mindset that is insulted 'to the very core of its being' by a convicted fraudster making an otherwise obscure piece of video trash? No, I think we can pretty surely say it isn't.
Is it conducive to human flourishing to be so grievously insulted by even the slightest attempt to depict one's prophet by those who do not share your faith or even live in the same country? Probably not.
These features are just one of many examples of the cultural damage done to human societies by religious faith - these ones happen to be particular to Islam. The history of religion in the developed world indicates that, whether they want to or not, faiths are forced to adapt to modernity. In time, I think as the Middle East develops, Islam will undergo the same change as Christianity has in the West.
Between now and the point when that happens, I actually think a particular kind of intolerance is a perfectly appropriate response for people in the West to undertake. I agree with Lazy Gun and Salman Rushdie - we should have the confidence and the courage to reject the legitimacy of "my faith is insulted" as an argument.
If we carry on speaking as we wish, then ultimately the "I am offended/I am insulted" argument will simply lose any power that it currently is: it relies on people listening to it and accepting it as valid - which it isn't. Without that, it will die - and good riddance.
In fact, there are already signs of this starting to happen. I'd like to draw people's attention to the 'International Draw Muhammed' events that were held all across the internet and prompted completely unsuccessful attempts at censorship in some Islamic countries:
http://
I respect the point you're making here, Andy, but I don't think it actually works.
You're right of course - philosophically speaking, there's no way to guarantee that "we" are in the right, and "they" are in the wrong. But I think you're wrong to assume that this means both positions are equal. If your starting point for debating (let alone resolving) this issue is to assume that all stances are equally valid, then you can guarantee that you will never come to any solution or even be able to say anything useful - because it accepts all priorities and agendas which are affected by the issue at once. You begin with an attitude that is very respectful, but utterly vacuous.
If we want to be able to say anything, or make any kind of coherent response to the ongoing protests - or the large numbers of similar events which have happened in recent years - then we need to have some opening standards and priorities. I would put it to you that the best standard we have is the one posited by Sam Harris: whether or not some behaviours, attitudes or beliefs are conducive to human flourishing.
Now, everyone on this board agrees that violent protest is not conducive to human flourishing.
But is it conducive to human flourishing to have a mindset that is insulted 'to the very core of its being' by a convicted fraudster making an otherwise obscure piece of video trash? No, I think we can pretty surely say it isn't.
Is it conducive to human flourishing to be so grievously insulted by even the slightest attempt to depict one's prophet by those who do not share your faith or even live in the same country? Probably not.
These features are just one of many examples of the cultural damage done to human societies by religious faith - these ones happen to be particular to Islam. The history of religion in the developed world indicates that, whether they want to or not, faiths are forced to adapt to modernity. In time, I think as the Middle East develops, Islam will undergo the same change as Christianity has in the West.
Between now and the point when that happens, I actually think a particular kind of intolerance is a perfectly appropriate response for people in the West to undertake. I agree with Lazy Gun and Salman Rushdie - we should have the confidence and the courage to reject the legitimacy of "my faith is insulted" as an argument.
If we carry on speaking as we wish, then ultimately the "I am offended/I am insulted" argument will simply lose any power that it currently is: it relies on people listening to it and accepting it as valid - which it isn't. Without that, it will die - and good riddance.
In fact, there are already signs of this starting to happen. I'd like to draw people's attention to the 'International Draw Muhammed' events that were held all across the internet and prompted completely unsuccessful attempts at censorship in some Islamic countries:
http://
Latest Posts
Food & Drink3 mins ago
Technology3 mins ago
ChatterBank12 mins ago
ChatterBank12 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.