FUMBBL :: Online Blood Bowl League

Joined: Jan 04, 2004

Posted: Feb 10, 2006 - 19:12

Clearly defending the right to free expression against violence and threats is a covertly racist agenda!

Nobodys trying to influence or control the Syrians, the imans or god forbid MUSLIMS in this case we're simply making a stand against people who want to violenty impose their own theist ideology on a culture that largely shunned it centuries ago. Hey maybe the peacekeeprs should avoid Rwanda since its clearly a return to the days of empire.

It'd be a shame for you to to have to argue a point without screaming 'its racist' whenever you feel you're losing the argument or trying to yank the subject wildly off topic to attack nations, political thinkers or other people on your pet hate list. I suggest improving your ideas if you want to be taken in any way seriously.

_________________
Forum terrorist.

Last edited by Glomp on %b %10, %2006 - %19:%Feb; edited 1 time in total

MickeX

Joined: Aug 02, 2003

Posted: Feb 10, 2006 - 19:40

inquisitorpustus wrote:

Sorry for not demanding blood for the murder of our countrymen
Sorry for not running around with c4 strapped to our bodies everytime we feel offended
Sorry for not doing whatever your faith dictates

The point here is simple: all who demand an apology are suicide bombers and megalomaniacs who wants to rule the world. It's a generalization in the exact same spirit as "all jews are greedy". Add your "drooling mongoloid"-comment, which somehow you don't seem fit for the white folks killing people and outlawing newspapers in Iraq, and we've got yet another case of colonial racist arguments. No surprise there - it's going to be common in the West as long as we take on the role of colonizers.

Jinxed

Joined: Jul 04, 2004

Posted: Feb 10, 2006 - 19:47

MickeX wrote:

The point here is simple; It's a generalization. <snipped back to the essence IMO>

It is a weird concept; look it up in a dictionary; it is under 'irony' or 'sarcasm'. Wink

_________________
Nuffle sucks

Glomp

Joined: Jan 04, 2004

Posted: Feb 10, 2006 - 19:53

You've failed basic reading comprehension too?

That was a direct quote from a letter sent to JP protesting the embassy attacks. Its specifically attacking the extreme element and dosen't mention muslims or arab nations anywhere. Its not a generalization at all, but you won't accept that because it makes your baseless racism argument less valid.

Your efforts to bring Iraq into this has also been invalidated previously. Nobodys condoning all the American tactics in policing Iraq, but that isn't the issue at hand so theres no reason to bring it up here. Again you'd like to try and find a double standard when none exists.

Oh yeah and its quite acceptable to refer to people who violently attack a principle and at the same time try to embrace it as 'drooling mongoloids'. It dosen't take a mental giant to see the problem there.

_________________
Forum terrorist.

Arktoris

Joined: Feb 16, 2004

Posted: Feb 10, 2006 - 20:26

Personally I don't see how racism applies here. Islam is a religion, not a race. But yes, there is a definite hypocrisy going on. This is what I see so far from some in the forum:

Muslims have a code of conduct forbidding depictions of their prophet.

Danes have a code of conduct forbidding people to be violent.

Danes believe they are exempt from Muslim code of conduct because they aren't Muslim.

by the same rationale, Iranians are exempt from the non-violence code of conduct since they aren't Danish.

So some Danes are exercising their self-given right to free speech in their home country, while some Iranians are exercising their self-given right to kick Danish butt in theirs.

What will be most interesting however, is whether or not the Embassy vandals are being punished by Iran's government. Or shall The people of Denmark be the only ones that give ground.

_________________
Hail to Manowar! The latest charioteer to DIE for bloodbowl! - Slain, by Ghor Oggaz

Last edited by Arktoris on %b %10, %2006 - %20:%Feb; edited 1 time in total

Glomp

Joined: Jan 04, 2004

Posted: Feb 10, 2006 - 20:29

arktoris wrote:

Personally I don't see how racism applies here. Muslim is a religion, not a race.

Islam.

I found someone who sums up the reasons for re-printing the cartoons better than I have so far:

Quote:

I understand the point you are making, but the problem is that not publishing the cartoons teaches the Islamic fundamentalists that they can essentially control western press by inciting riots whenever they see something they don't like.

Sure it seems silly now with this cartoon issue, but the idea of refraining from publishing them because they might incite further violence leads to the idea of regraining from publishing more serious criticisms of fundamentalist Islam for exactly the same reason. There were riots and eath with the publication of Rushdie's The Satanic Verses as well and I think that's a rather important piece of literature.

Yes the cartoons themselves are trivial but the idea that something shouldn't be published because of a possible violent reaction gives those who initiate the violence the upper hand.

_________________
Forum terrorist.

Arktoris

Joined: Feb 16, 2004

Posted: Feb 10, 2006 - 20:54

correction made

The last sentence you quoted Inq. I think is a valuable lesson in reality. Those who are capable of doing violence will always have the upper hand over those who can't. That's the first "law of the jungle" which governs all life on Earth (including mankind). No matter what happens to the perpetrators in Iran against the Embassy, I doubt any well-known western newspaper will print an image like that for a long time.

It's why here in America, our forefathers had enough wisdom to make freedom of speech the first amendment....and recognizing a citizen's right to defend it, the second.

Freedom don't come free.

_________________
Hail to Manowar! The latest charioteer to DIE for bloodbowl! - Slain, by Ghor Oggaz

Mnemon

Joined: Aug 02, 2003

Posted: Feb 10, 2006 - 21:25

And that is where that quote is wrong. The comics ARE slander. There is nothing to defend that. Now if JP had posted an somewhat balanced (there is no objectivity) well researched article on some of the many critical things that do happen in Muslim/Islamic countries, and there'd been protests against that, I'd see the thing a little different.

What's left out here is that there is a conduct of at least attempting to be objective that supposedly is at the core of the "Journalists ethic" as well - of course it is disregarded all the time in the boulevard press - but seriously, if anything I'll measure things toward the high ideals that are officially put forward. What is also is left out that yet again, the issue is missed. Those people protesting to a large degree probably haven't even seen the comics. Nor will they see the reprints. All that they will hear is that they are continued to be printed and that somebody is supposedly continuing to insult them. A head-on controversial defense of freedom of speech will not teach anyone a lesson, because it is not a communicative approach, that actually tries to explain, but an in-your-face one. Just by reprinting the cartoons we only further the cause of the Islamic fundamentalists. A good form of protest would be to try to open up the discussion and take away the defining right from the fundementalists on both sides - but the first thing to achieve that is to cool the situation down and let the emotional heat pass away. That would be acting responsibly. Just reprinting isn't. Of course it is tedious arguing. Of course it probably will reach only very few people. But those massive changes that are required in the Muslim world for it to move closer to accepting concepts like the right of free speech won't happen overnight, and won't happen by a head-on controversial debate like this. They definitely won't happen by external force - or rather it'd be an unhealthy and not very productive way of changing things if change came like that. Unwanted change is unproductive.

The underdog can use the way of civil-disobedience. If those in power - or perceived to be in power - try to use it it doesn't work, and rather only will be read as a further attempt at putting people down, continuing to enrage them.

I don't think any newspaper went so far as to start to reprint The Satanic Verses just because of what happened. And I am also fairly certain that no publishing house picked them up afterward only to defend the right of free speech. It was published for what it was, as where the cartoons. They got their audience. The main thrust of the defense of the right of publication of The Satanic Verses didn't happen by massproducing and copying it as often as possible - it happened by arguing for it, constructively. That they were widely translated and spread was a side effect, mostly because there was interest in them. I don't see that happening with the comics - those that are interested in seeing them will have seen them by now.

The problem is - there is little about the cartoons that can be argued for constructively because, once again, they are slanderous. That they were printed in the first place means that the right of free speech did work already, in some manner.

What is happening is that we end up in a very black and white situation. You have the one side fundamentally arguing "we have a right of free speech and believe in it, no matter what" in an (the way it is handled misguided) attempt at defending the moral system of the West not by communication but by repeat "offense", and the other side continuing to maintain and argue from a fundementalist moral/religious perspective and with violence.

Of course just dropping of and ignoring the issue would be wrong. But for hell's sake if we in the "enlightened" part of the world should have learned anything it should be to counter this in a levelheaded and argumentative manner. Specifically because the cartoons are so trivial we don't need to reprint them. What ain't trivial is the reaction to them, and if you'll get that message out you'll do much more good for the freedom of speech then in any other way.

Quote:

Yes the cartoons themselves are trivial but the idea that something shouldn't be published because of a possible violent reaction gives those who initiate the violence the upper hand.

They were published. They weren't refused because of a possible violent reaction. They were published and deemed worthwhile publishing months ago. But there is no need to reprint knowing full well that there will be further violence when reprinting. That is a fine but very essential difference.

-Mnemon

Last edited by Mnemon on %b %10, %2006 - %21:%Feb; edited 1 time in total

Fezdan

Joined: Jan 30, 2006

Posted: Feb 10, 2006 - 21:53

The question seemed to me to be asking - what is freedom of speech? We all (technically) have the freedom to do and say anything at all - except that which is physically impossible for us. Why do we not do go crazy and start stealing/murdering/pillaging/saying outrageous things? Norms and consequences - these are decided by our institutions - political, economic and of course social. Freedom of speech - is defined by norms and LAWS which does not permit (in most places where this freedom is even recognised) the use of freedom to slander (see libel/slander law) or discriminate (see anti-discrimination law). SO do we have the right of free speech? The answer is: in some nations/bodies politic individuals are granted the right ot free expression by the institution of law, this same institution usually then defines areas where free expression is restricted as it can harm/hinder certain rights of other individuals - the right to equality of opportunity for example. So it would seem that the Danes have a right to use cartoons to insult religions. Does having a right make it RIGHT?

Should I be free to ridicule and impugn your deepest truth (subjective of course) but not free to steal your wallet? Why? What has greater value - $50.00 and some plastic cards or my perceived knowledge of the true and sacred? Maybe $50.00 and a credit card is an embodiment of my perception of the sacred.

This is a complex issue - I could say much more - but I need to play bbl.

bye,
Fezdan.

Glomp

Joined: Jan 04, 2004

Posted: Feb 10, 2006 - 21:55

Mnemon wrote:

Those people protesting to a large degree probably haven't even seen the comics. Nor will they see the reprints. All that they will hear is that they are continued to be printed and that somebody is supposedly continuing to insult them.

This is why responsible journalists in countries that havn't yet had these published are doing so in an attempt to at the very least allow people to get an accurate perspective on the issue. Nobody can formulate a reasoned opinion without seeing them, since for all they know these things could be the height of witty satire.

Mnemon wrote:

A head-on controversial defense of freedom of speech will not teach anyone a lesson, because it is not a communicative approach, that actually tries to explain, but an in-your-face one. Just by reprinting the cartoons we only further the cause of the Islamic fundamentalists.

The cartoons are childish because they do little to advance the important and sophisticated arguments out there against Islam specifically and religion generally. But if childish provocation forces more people to confront the terror of doubt, and somehow deepens that important debate, then I'll chalk it up to creative destruction.

This isn't a clever or subtle way to debate the merits of islam, but at least it creates some debate.

Mnemon wrote:

They got their audience. The main thrust of the defense of the right of publication of The Satanic Verses didn't happen by massproducing and copying it as often as possible - it happened by arguing for it, constructively. That they were widely translated and spread was a side effect, mostly because there was interest in them. I don't see that happening with the comics - those that are interested in seeing them will have seen them by now.

People tend to be fairly lazy and one of the benefits of print based media is that its cheap and easy to get hold of. I know people who havn't seen these yet and who would've had the British national press re-printed these. Hell I'm still seeing people on various internet message boards who've only recently been shown the cartoons in threads like this. Just because we're interested and/or computer literate enough in this issue to go out and get some perspective dosen't mean that everyone else is.

Mnemon wrote:

What is happening is that we end up in a very black and white situation. You have the one side fundamentally arguing "we have a right of free speech and believe in it, no matter what" in an (the way it is handled misguided) attempt at defending the moral system of the West not by communication but by repeat offense, and the other side continuing to maintain and argue from a fundementalist moral/religious perspective.

Which is essentially what the argument boils down to yes, but as has already been stated the violence is stemming from a tiny minority of a faith that comprises around 1.5 billion people. This isn't west vs east, its west vs a very small number of extremists.

The moderates are offended too, but they can at least tolerate the existance of the cartoons and realise that the western powers aren't embroiled in some evil scheme to destroy their values.

Hell I'm been speaking to muslims who are deeply ashamed that more of the press is backing down in the face of violence.

There is a communication thats going on right now. The radicals are using this issue as a test to see which of the world powers will bow to their pressure. The people re-printing them are sending the message firmly back 'not us'.

Every act of censorchip of these cartoons will create more violence not less.

_________________
Forum terrorist.

Last edited by Glomp on %b %10, %2006 - %22:%Feb; edited 4 times in total

wookie

Joined: Oct 02, 2003

Posted: Feb 10, 2006 - 21:57

In my opinion, freedom of religion means that any religious or non-religious belief has equal right to be exercised, but has no relevance at all to non-followers of that belief. This is absolutely necessary because rules for followers from different religions may well be contradictory to each other. It is even possible to start a religious movement claiming that pictures of the prophet Muhammed must imperatively be drawn and published every week! If such a new religion arises, it must be given the same right as any other to exist and be exercised by the followers. Hence I stand up for the freedom of speech in any case except when urging to criminal actions of persecution of individuals or groups.

In this context, Bloodbowl is to be regarded as one single religion and we must all follow our holy rulebook! The friendly persecution and fouling of Bloodbowl players pass the above rule since the players do not exist in reality... Smile

Fezdan

Joined: Jan 30, 2006

Posted: Feb 10, 2006 - 22:19

[quote="wookie"]In my opinion, freedom of religion means that any religious or non-religious belief has equal right to be exercised, but has no relevance at all to non-followers of that belief. This is absolutely necessary because rules for followers from different religions may well be contradictory to each other.

You are absolutely ( or as near to absolute as possible) right. This is of course the set of norms and institutions of the SECULAR state - born of the horrific religious strife (of different Christian sects) of Early Modern Europe. It is thr dying dream of the Enlightenment! Not just amog Islamic theocracies either. World-wide we are seeing a blurring of the line betweeen State & Faith - often under the pretext of various individual rights - including the right to free speech - eg "intelligent design". Scary, scary keep faith out of politics! Please - it can only lead to tears!
Fezdan

Mnemon

Joined: Aug 02, 2003

Posted: Feb 10, 2006 - 22:24

inquisitorpustus wrote:

The cartoons are childish because they do little to advance the important and sophisticated arguments out there against Islam specifically and religion generally. But if childish provocation forces more people to confront the terror of doubt, and somehow deepens that important debate, then I'll chalk it up to creative destruction.

No. Provocation is not the way this will be solved. I mean - this is not like a sudden catastrophe nobody could forsee. Or a problem that nobody is aware of. The way this can be solved is by helping and assisting those that do try to resist in those areas - like that girl speaking up against the violence during the demonstration mentioned in the thread sometime. Supporting these people that don't escalate, and putting them, rather then the cartoons that do escalate, into the lime light, helping these people would be a positive way. I am very certain there is civil disobedience over there - but that's not what sells newspapers. Slanderous and childish cartoons do, sadly. Destruction by pure force never is creative.

inquisitorpustus wrote:

This isn't a clever or subtle way to debate the merits of Islam, but at least it creates some debate.

So debate for the sake of debating is good, no matter what "collateral damage" it'll cause? I am not enough of a cynic yet to simply accept that.

inquisitorpustus wrote:

People tend to be fairly lazy and one of the benefits of print based media is that its cheap and easy to get hold of. I know people who haven't seen these yet and who would've had the British national press re-printed these. Hell I'm still seeing people on various internet message boards who've only recently been shown the cartoons in threads like this. Just because we're interested and/or computer literate enough in this issue to go out and get some perspective doesn't mean that everyone else is.

Now that is an entirely different issue that is in no means what so ever connected to Freedom of Speech. Those that aren't interested enough to get themselves informed don't need to be spoon-fed information. Because that way they won't be informed in an objective manner either, but just continue to babble what they have been fed. Seriously. If you can't be arsed to do some research of your own you shouldn't complain not knowing them. If you don't know them you lose your right to argue. Freedom of Speech does work - they are easily accessible to anyone that wants to have a look. And that goes for both sides.

inquisitorpustus wrote:

Which is essentially what the argument boils down to yes, but as has already been stated the violence is stemming from a tiny minority of a faith that comprises around 1.5 billion people. This isn't west vs east, its west vs a very small number of extremists.

No, sorry. I am very certain a lot of people in the west are not involved at all, here either. This is a minority of people in the west that have the means to publicise and declare themselves the sole defenders of our Freedom of speech vs. a number of populists that manipulate the population on the other side. No where is this all of the West or a unified front of a majority against the other. I refuse to be lumped together and included in an opinion that somehow suddenly is THE opinion of anyone living in the Western world. That's bullshit and just another attempt to help people avoid taking personal responsibility. If a newspaper decides to publish them, all the more power to them, but please not in the name of the West, because no-one can do that - just as the Fundamentalists on the other side don't (or rather shouldn't) have the sole right on interpreting reality.

-Mnemon

Fezdan

Joined: Jan 30, 2006

Posted: Feb 10, 2006 - 22:37

[quote="wookie"]In my opinion, freedom of religion means that any religious or non-religious belief has equal right to be exercised, but has no relevance at all to non-followers of that belief. This is absolutely necessary because rules for followers from different religions may well be contradictory to each other.

You are absolutely ( or as near to absolute as possible) right. This is of course the set of norms and institutions of the SECULAR state - born of the horrific religious strife (of different Christian sects) of Early Modern Europe. It is thr dying dream of the Enlightenment! Not just amog Islamic theocracies either. World-wide we are seeing a blurring of the line betweeen State & Faith - often under the pretext of various individual rights - including the right to free speech - eg "intelligent design". Scary, scary keep faith out of politics! Please - it can only lead to tears!
Fezdan

Glomp

Joined: Jan 04, 2004

Posted: Feb 10, 2006 - 23:01

Mnemon wrote:

No. Provocation is not the way this will be solved. I mean - this is not like a sudden catastrophe nobody could forsee. Or a problem that nobody is aware of. The way this can be solved is by helping and assisting those that do try to resist in those areas - like that girl speaking up against the violence during the demonstration mentioned in the thread sometime. Supporting these people that don't escalate, and putting them, rather then the cartoons that do escalate, into the lime light, helping these people would be a positive way. I am very certain there is civil disobedience over there - but that's not what sells newspapers. Slanderous and childish cartoons do, sadly. Destruction by pure force never is creative.

I don't think anyones yet tried to claim that this solves anything, but it may be the first step along the road to a solution. The hidden dialoge going on between extreme theists media and governments is testing the limits and may well help create a basis for a talking point and maybe create better eventual boundaries for a debate to take place. At least now each side it better aware of the others limits.

Mnemon wrote:

So debate for the sake of debating is good, no matter what "collateral damage" it'll cause? I am not enough of a cynic yet to simply accept that.

Yes. Our civilisation has been shaped by people on opposing sides of a bitter divide coming to a better understanding via debate that caused bloodshed and hatred. Refusing to move to the back of a bus isn't a clever critique of segregation.

Mnemon wrote:

Now that is an entirely different issue that is in no means what so ever connected to Freedom of Speech. Those that aren't interested enough to get themselves informed don't need to be spoon-fed information. Because that way they won't be informed in an objective manner either, but just continue to babble what they have been fed. Seriously. If you can't be arsed to do some research of your own you shouldn't complain not knowing them. If you don't know them you lose your right to argue. Freedom of Speech does work - they are easily accessible to anyone that wants to have a look. And that goes for both sides.

These cartoons aren't easily accessable at all for large numbers of people. There are people who simply don't have access to the internet for a variety of reasons and more who do, but don't posess the required amount if internet saavy to track these things down.

The press isn't just a tool for the receptive or the elite, its foundation is based on education and it isn't fair to exclude people from that or make finding information more difficult than it necessarily has to be.

Mnemon wrote:

No, sorry. I am very certain a lot of people in the west are not involved at all, here either. This is a minority of people in the west that have the means to publicise and declare themselves the sole defenders of our Freedom of speech vs. a number of populists that manipulate the population on the other side. No where is this all of the West or a unified front of a majority against the other. I refuse to be lumped together and included in an opinion that somehow suddenly is THE opinion of anyone living in the Western world. That's bullshit and just another attempt to help people avoid taking personal responsibility. If a newspaper decides to publish them, all the more power to them, but please not in the name of the West, because no-one can do that - just as the Fundamentalists on the other side don't (or rather shouldn't) have the sole right on interpreting reality.

No ok I used a sweeping statement and I shouldn't have. I'm fully aware that there are a large people who don't support these being printed.

There are also a large number of people who fully support our press and feel the need for all the worlds press to inform people in an attempt to blunt these extremists and who are firmly of the opinion that doing so will save lives, advance relations between cultures and make the world a safer place to be..

_________________
Forum terrorist.

Last edited by Glomp on %b %10, %2006 - %23:%Feb; edited 4 times in total