Slashdot Mirror
Pakistan Court Orders Facebook Ban Over Mohammed Images
jitendraharlalka writes with this excerpt from Al Jazeera English: "A Pakistani court has issued a ban on the social networking site Facebook after a user-generated contest page encouraged members to post caricatures of Prophet Mohammed. The Lahore High Court on Wednesday instructed the Pakistani Telecommunications Authority (PTA) to ban the site after the Islamic Lawyers Movement complained that a page called 'Draw Mohammed Day' is blasphemous. ... 'We have already blocked the URL link and issued instruction to Internet service providers,' Khurram Mehran, a spokesperson for the PTA, said."
They should block Google too then.
A theocracy would probably want to ban intentional mass blasphemy, especially when it was done for commercial purposes.
LOLMohammad?
Someone has had to have done that somewhere, right?
I don't get it. I mean, sure, I respect the Muslim religion, just as I respect Christianity, Buddhism*, etc.
But fuck man, relax. It's just those heathen bastards (who are gonna go to hell according to you anyway) so let them have their fun. Please, tell me, exactly HOW does this defile Mohammad? Dude's been dead for a long time. Trust me, he don't give a damn.
*Has this been deemed an official religion?
Sent from your iPad.
How anybody who isn't a member of a religion could be committing blasphemy within the framework of that religion is beyond me.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
I don't share the view of the extremists, but how does not drawing the Prophet Mohamed hurt anyone?
I don't share the view of the extremists, but how does DRAWING the Prophet Mohammad hurt anyone?
Sent from your iPad.
Here
Also, a little background, courtesy of Wikipedia
-
/|\
( ) - Hi! I'm the Prophet Mohammed! I KILL YOU!
-
|
|
/ \
Now kill everyone on Slashdot for Allah because of my "art".
I don't agree with how Thunderf00t is conveying his message but he has made an important point. Islamic Censorship has gone way way too far. I support free speech, and secular, rational thinking. I do think that religion is sort of the Human biological equivalent of a computer virus, or malware. (Most Windows users on the face of the Earth are infected with malware of some sort. Equivalently, most Human brains are infected with a Malware called Religion. The virus is different in different parts of the world, but its still a virus.
Computer malware makes computers function in ways it shouldn't to propagate the virus. Religion makes Humans behave in ways or experience things in ways they shouldn't. Computer viruses are created by malicious Humans to steal money, and cover commit other crimes. Religions exist to steal money, and rationalize the committing of other crimes that would not normally be acceptable in secular culture.
I can definitely understand iconoclasm - the desire to prevent mere symbols from being more important than the core idea. Applied to Islam, it would be a prophet's desire that his message not be cheapened by allowing it to be tied too deeply with its imperfect messenger.
What I don't understand is how that is turned around and transformed into these series of death threats (and actions, and laws) that in effect make the depiction of the man more important than the depiction of the beliefs he was supposed to represent.
Is that really the first priority for those who want to spread the ultimate revealed truth of the universe - playing image police against every person who is not a believer? Seems a rather silly priority to have in the context.
Ryan Fenton
How about a photo? Like maybe Andreas Serrano's "Piss Christ".......as far as I know, Serrano is still walking the streets (no bodyguards) without fear of being beheaded.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piss_Christ
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
OK ... I think that women should be free, not slaves. Evolution is pretty obvious, killing innocents is a sin, I could go on ...
Why do THEY get to offend my religious sensibilities? Why should their ideas get precedence?
Respect the status quo, never question authority or religion. Never do anything controversial. People have a right to not be offended.- Things a total tool says.
One of these days I'm going to cut you into little pieces. - PF
What does it take to get Facebook banned in the US? I'm totally behind that project. /me checks his Facebook account.
No sig for you. YOU GET NO SIG!
How does not sharing your point of view hurt anyone?
Enough said.
My parents taught me that sticking my hand into a fire was hot, that I'd get hurt and that I shouldn't do it. Surely these Facebook taunters learned that too?
That's not being prudent. That's being a coward.
Surely you're not suggesting that we relinquish our right to draw WHATEVER THE FUCK WE PLEASE, because someone is threatening us with bodily harm if we draw something that displeases them.
It is only natural for people to resist when their most basic right of self-expression is violated.
At this point, western democracies need to make a stand against the violence of radical Islam, even if it takes such comical form. If we fold any time they threaten us with violence, then we will live according to THEIR rules in no time.
I don't support any of the two views (extremists and provocateurs), but the message you are passing is:
"Certain religious people have some sensibility to something. If you provoke them and they kill you, it's your fault".
It's that kind of message that encourages the provocateurs, not the sensibility. It's just disrespectful (while maybe a service) to make fun of other people's sensibilities, religious or not. But it's simply unacceptable to consider such a reaction acceptable.
Religion is free to tell their believers what they cannot do. But they cross the line when they want non-believers to abide to their laws.
http://dilbert.com/2010-12-13
How about a photo? Like maybe Andreas Serrano's "Piss Christ".......as far as I know, Serrano is still walking the streets (no bodyguards) without fear of being beheaded.
On the flipside, Michael Moore had to hire a handful of bodyguards after he released Fahrenheit 9/11.
Or how about Jesse Helms stating that Bill Clinton had "better bring a bodyguard" if he comes to North Carolina?
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
The actual problem is that an image of Mohammed might lead to Mohammed worship instead of worship of Allah.
Of course worship of Mohammed is exactly what has happened. Anyone held in that much reverence is de-facto being worshiped.
It's not to get a rise out of htem, it's to demonstrate to a small minority of radicals that their extreme religious beliefs do not trump the free speech of others, and that the attempts of extremists to kill and censor such speech will not be tolerated by the world community.
93rd rule of Slashdot: No matter how obvious my sarcasm is, my comment will be taken seriously by someone.
One right we absolutely don't have is the right to not be offended.
It doesn't hurt to be nice.
If you know he's imaginary, why would you need him anymore? Why does our hypothetical Christian need an imaginary friend to tell him not to be an asshat?
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Funny thing is, you really have to either admit that the Quran is open to some interpretation, or admit that marrying kids is okay. Some people say that, because sometimes at the time the first digit was left off when it was known (ex a 23 year old marking their age as 3 when it was known that they were in their twenties), so some say Aisha may have been 19. I don't know if that's true or not though, so take that with a grain of salt. Also, some might say that, because such things were products of their time, it should be viewed in the context day. For the hardline theotards though, that's reinterpreting the Quran, which is a big no-no, but you never hear then really caring that their profit is a pedophile. The finer points of logic are often lost on people like that. Muslims can believe whatever they want, but they should think about it. Do you modernize and moderate your faith, or is you god's number one dude a pedophile? Those are your only two options, pick one.
That may explain why they are like that, but it does not excuse it. Christian atrocities were unacceptable then, and Islamic atrocities are unacceptable now.
Also, cultural relativism should kindly go fuck itself.
"linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
I'll never understand why respecting someone else's religious views (or lack there of) is such a bad thing?
I don't know that I'd call it a bad thing, but I, personally, tend to respect things which deserve respect, because I, y'know, actually feel respect for them. I don't respect things just to spare someone's feelings.
Everybody Draw Mohammed Day is only being done to prove those Muslims who who are offended by it.
Actually, no, it's about freedom of speech, and about proving that chilling effect no longer works when we have the courage to stand up to them. Here's a much better explanation from the guy who started it.
when someone gets hurt or killed those who are on the receiving end of the violence will act as though they are surprised by it.
Surprised? No, but disappointed as hell. Whatever happened to "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"?
No one should have to suffer a death threat for writing a book, drawing a picture, or saying something you don't like.
Don't poke a bear with a stick - it never ends well.
No one's poking anyone. We are provoking, yes, but with words.
And the people we're provoking are humans, which means they're capable of coming up with fair retaliation -- like, say, blaspheming against our respective religions -- instead of killing people.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
We could just as well as said 'draw jesus fucking magdalene' or jesus jacking off cartoon - or the three wise men making out with mary.
Indeed -- but the point here is that if that's what it was, there would be no death threats, riots, or banning of websites from entire countries (except maybe Ireland or Rome).
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
One word... tolerance.
Bill Maher said it best on that one.
Let us not become so tolerant, that we tolerate intolerance.
There is nothing I could possibly add to that.
Grow up, boy.
Join the real world, take your head out of your ass and looking around you - if you do that you'll see most Muslims are normal people like you and me just getting on with their day who don't give a toss about insignificant little bigots like you.
So asserting my constitutional rights makes me a bigot now?
What does the rant above make you?
Oh, and while we're on the subject of religious violence, just how many gun-toting Christians are there in the US?
Plenty. Yet if I draw a Jesus taking a load in the face, I can walk down the street reasonably sure that I'm not going to get shot.
How 'bout that?
One word... tolerance.
Good point. Radical Muslims should really be more tolerant of those who do not follow their religion, and are therefore not bound by its rules.
Grow up, boy. When you get to middle-age like me you begin to understand that life is about tolerating and making allowances for others and not letting insignificant bits of crap ruin your day.
We're still talking about the Muslims who get so worked up over a cartoon that they want to kill someone over it, right?
Join the real world, take your head out of your ass and looking around you - if you do that you'll see most Muslims are normal people like you and me just getting on with their day who don't give a toss about insignificant little bigots like you.
Any Muslim who is a normal person like me won't give a shit about any cartoon. Anyone making threats over a cartoon simply needs to learn not to take themselves so seriously.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Well, western democracies block cartoon image of children, so I guess the great karma circle is now complete. Or else it's a death spiral of censorship. Either way, the outrage brigade gets what they want and the rest of us will just have to accept a more restricted web whether we live in Karachi or California.
May the Maths Be with you!
Let me break it down for you:
If you do not know that they are imaginary, then you are a loon. Because they are, in fact, imaginary to everyone else, including the members of your own religion, who imagine them differently. Still, this case is relatively harmless.
If you do know that they are imaginary, but still go through the motions, then you are just like the pope and most of the clergy: you don't really believe jack shit, except that you deserve to get your cut for telling people what you know are lies. For example, pope's complete disregard for the New Testament ethics is plainly evidenced by his treatment of celibacy, contraceptives, priests who molest children -- you name it. They are all case 2, and we know they are in it just for the money and the power. What's the harm, you say?
You are thinking too concretely. Please note the difference :
Now consider :
If I said 'Santa is generous', I think most people would agree, and not be mislead into thinking that I actually believe there is a Santa. I can believe 'Santa is Generous' without needing to believe that Santa is a real person.
Too subtle? Too nuts?
My God is real.
Your God is not real
My God doesn't want people to do X
This applies to everyone because they're believing in the wrong God.
Doing Gods work gets me into heaven.
These people insult God, therefore killing them means I'm protecting God.
Therefore God owes me a seat.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I'll never understand why respecting someone else's religious views (or lack there of) is such a bad thing?
Because many religions (particularly christianity and islam) actively seek to impose their worldview on those who do not share their beliefs. It is a key part of their belief system that they expressly do not respect the fact that I don't believe in their god. According to some of them I should be put to death for not converting to their irrational worship. Adults who believe you should respect their imaginary friends and will hurt you if you don't is not something I'm particularly inclined to respect. If they keep their crazy beliefs to themselves they'll never have a problem with me. But there always seem to be those who can't resist trying to convert the unbelievers by any means necessary.
Disrespecting their religious views just to get a rise out of them is counterproductive, and when someone gets hurt or killed those who are on the receiving end of the violence will act as though they are surprised by it.
Surprised? I don't think anyone is surprised at how crazy religious zealots get. That is also not a compelling argument for appeasing them or their crazy irrational beliefs.
Don't poke a bear with a stick - it never ends well.
Depends on who is doing the poking.
So they don't like caricatures of Mohammed, is it *REALLY* that important you somehow earn the right to be able to do it?
Yes. That is part of freedom of speech it isn't the freedom to say "lets all be happy in our current situation, the USA is the best and Obama/Bush are gods!" that isn't freedom, every country gives you the "freedom" to say good things. Freedom of speech means that I can say fuck Obama, Bush, the USA, the UN, Jesus, Moses, Mohamed, Buddha, The war on terror, communism, capitalism, socialism, etc. that is freedom of speech.
/might/ get a death threat. I'm sure as hell not going to get a car laden with explosives parked outside my house though. I'm not going to get killed, I'm going to get perhaps a boycott of any further art I draw, etc.
Why is it that Muslims get a free pass? You know what? I could draw a cartoon of Jesus screwing Moses and I doubt I'd get any thing more than a few laughs, a few angry e-mails and such. If I push it forth I
http://reason.com/archives/2010/05/14/the-poet-versus-the-prophet is a very interesting article. Why is it that every, single, other religion has embraced tolerance other than Islam? If Islam is so tolerant then why aren't the Islamic leaders doing more to embrace it?
And how about if a group of Muslims in Afghanistan started posting cartoons on Facebook of injured American or British soldiers? Are you going to sit back and laugh about it because "It's their right" to do so?
I wouldn't laugh at it, I would respect their right to free speech and do nothing. I don't believe in censorship of any kind, they have their right to post what they want, I post what I want, if I don't like it -gasp- I don't have to look at it.
Grow up, boy. When you get to middle-age like me you begin to understand that life is about tolerating and making allowances for others and not letting insignificant bits of crap ruin your day.
So we should "tolerate" the fact that Islam can get a free pass of criticism but every other religion we can do whatever?
Join the real world, take your head out of your ass and looking around you - if you do that you'll see most Muslims are normal people like you and me just getting on with their day who don't give a toss about insignificant little bigots like you.
Yeah, most are. However, their leaders are advocating religious violence. I don't see the current Pope saying we should have a mass genocide of non-catholics but yet Islamic leaders are basically saying the same thing.
Oh, and while we're on the subject of religious violence, just how many gun-toting Christians are there in the US?
I don't see Christians making death threats and attempting to carry them out on cartoonists who make fun of Jesus or any other biblical figure.
In short, out of all the religions in the world at the present age, it is only Islam that advocates violence for such stupid, insignificant things as cartoons.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
But going out of your way to say "fuck you, here's what we think of your religion" just to try to provoke a group of extremists who are prone to violence doesn't make much sense.
It makes plenty of sense in the same way that mass protests against a misbehaving government make sense. If you tell them "the emperor has no clothes" just by yourself they might kill you. If thousands or millions say something is crazy, irrational and wrong then it is harder for those in power to push back. There is power in groups of people who are unwilling to be cowed by those in power. This demand that we "respect" their religious idol is an attempt to coerce MY behavior and I'm not willing to be coerced. When hundreds of thousands of people point out that they are being a bully and aren't going to take it any more then the crazies lose power.
Making some reasonable effort to show respect isn't always bad, but always respecting everyone's views is simply not possible. For example, I cannot show complete respect for a radical Christians's views that all adulterers should be stoned to death without disrespecting another radical Christian's views that the old testament laws don't apply anymore and that stoning adulterers is wrong. Incompatible world views exist, it's simply our choice as to which one's we're going to upset with our activities. Heck, a PETA member might even argue that poking that bear will end well for the bear when it gets a man-sized meal, so go ahead.
I'll tell you exactly why: There is a strong sense of condescension behind political correctness and "tolerance".
I think the whole concept distills down to "Oh, we civilized people should be tolerant of others, but these $OTHER_FOLK are less civilized/human and therefore we can't expect them to understand tolerance."
It's a back-handed, dehumanizing degrading of those they claim to "tolerate", while they smugly hide behind politically correct terminology.
Either that, or a pure self-hatred of progress and its "costs", thus deferring to anybody seen as more primitive to literally take over with their more-in-tune-with-the-universe ways. Which again is still a degrading insult in how they relatively view their target of "tolerance".
It offends their religious sensibilities. I'll never understand why respecting someone else's religious views (or lack there of) is such a bad thing?
Then why is it that every single other religion has grown out of these stupidities and don't resort to violence in the 21st century.
Why is it that I can make cartoons of Jesus all I want, make fun of Buddha, criticize Joseph Smith (founder of Mormonism), declare that the big bang was a myth, prove Zeus never existed, and any other religious symbol other than those related to Islam and various small, irrational cults and have nothing more than angry letters?
There is a difference between respect and cowardice. And my respect ends when a religion tramples over human rights to make a point.
Every other religion has earned the right to have respect other than Islam and a few small cults. They don't trample over human rights and don't resort to violence. Why Islam gets a free pass is only because of cowardice.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
Grow up, boy.
I'll jump in since I'm WELL past the age where I could be described as a "boy" you condescending prick.
When you get to middle-age like me you begin to understand that life is about tolerating and making allowances for others and not letting insignificant bits of crap ruin your day.
Bullshit. There are sometimes things that cannot under any circumstances be tolerated. There are some world views that simply cannot peacefully coexist. There are those who will attempt to conquer, destroy, enslave and humiliate. I should just tolerate this? I think you are the one who needs a dose of the real world.
Oscar Wilde actually said it best "everything in moderation, including moderation". That applies to tolerance too.
You mean just like Saint Joseph the pedophile, husband of Mary the Mother of Jesus. Just seems like you're implying that Islam is unique in this. It was common at the time for girls to marry around 13.
Between that and the Anti-Choice movement folks who post abortion doctors home addresses and schedules on websites, just in case any of their viewers want to go sniping that day. Hatred is hatred, and just as unacceptable for Christians as it is in Muslims.
"The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
I'll never understand why respecting someone else's religious views (or lack there of) is such a bad thing?
It is MY belief that I should be free from anyone else's "religious" bullshit and that if they choose to try to push it on me that I should be free to kill them in the manner that I deem fit.
So you can respect MY beliefs as well.
Anyone who wants to do me harm for NOT cowing to their beliefs is going to meet a miserable end if they want to get into my face about it. Period. Full stop. End of fucking story.
It was common at the time for girls to marry around 13.
By your standard, then, we can all agree that he was a pedophile because
Muhammad is said to have asked her to arrange for him to marry both. Traditional sources dictate that Aisha was six or seven years old when betrothed to Muhammad but the marriage was not consummated until she was nine or ten years old.
You know, I have to give the old goat props in that he invented a much more viral religion than Ronnie Hubbard. You get to marry kids (if you're into that sort of thing), if anyone disagrees with you then it's probably because they're infidels and you may kill them and take their stuff, and you can beat your wife to keep her in line as long as you do it right. Ron aimed for the idle wealthy. Hammy snared the disenfranchised, uneducated masses. They don't make nearly as much on average, but there's an awful lot more of them.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Again, there is still a difference.
People who disagree with abortion view it as murder. People who disagree with the Mohammed images at most can say its "blasphemy". If your going to go after someone, it makes a whole lot more sense to go after someone who you view is a murder than someone who is "defaming" someone who has been dead for centuries.
There is no comparison in this day and age between Islamic violence and violence from almost every other religion.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
I think we can all agree that there's a big difference between depictions of child molestation/rape and cartoons poking fun at a religious figure. I don't agree with the banning of the former. While horrid, sick, and depraved, there is still the fact that nobody was harmed in their creation.
If a woman goes out in the street, not wearing a tent-like burka, it's totally her fault when she get raped, and we should beat her to death for being such a slut? Thats the actual law in some countries! You seem to be OK with that line of reasoning, so I guess it's no surprise that you're defending a religion stuck in the middle ages.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
And if you consider a right to draw religious cartoons as being important, then can I suggest you get yourself a better hobby, because you clearly have far too much free time in your day.
If you don't see that the right to draw religious cartoons is important, then you don't understand free speech at all.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
In the society in which Muhammad and Aisha lived, marrying at 7 and consummating at 10 was not uncommon, either.
Anyway, I don't see why this particular side of Islam is raised so much. It's really nothing but an appeal to emotion, dressed in such a way as to be a surefire flamebait in today's pedo-witchhunt climate.
There are much better, rational reasons to denounce Islam. Let's focus on them. The whole "Muhammad is a pedophile" meme is childish and does a disservice to the cause.
It offends their religious sensibilities. I'll never understand why respecting someone else's religious views (or lack there of) is such a bad thing?
Respect is not carte blanc. If I go to someone's place of worship or home, I'm going to have the decency to respect their religion and customs; wear a hat, take off your shoes, be a part of the group singing the song, etc. But that begins to wane once we're out the door. If they want to come over to my house, I'm going to want that same level of respect. As a good host, it'd be respectful for me to provide hamburgers as well as the pork ribs that I think really makes a good BBQ. And I'm not going to be offended if someone must pass on my killer baby back ribs that's one of my specialties. But we're not going to dump out the rack of ribs because someone's religion prohibits pork and it's ludicrous to listen to any such demands.
It makes sense to anyone rational that murder would be worse than blasphemy. The entire point of laws are to protect people's rights from being violated. What right is violated in drawing anything? Humans have a right to live, murder violates that. There is no right not to be offended. There is, however a basic human right to have the right to offend. Such a right is needed in a free society.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
Here we go, maybe we should put this in all our sig's and webpages we maintain:
Smiley Muhammad ibn 'Abdullh:
[[:->
ASCII Muhammad ibn 'Abdullh
____
(____)o
(_____)
| o o |
W ^ W
WWW
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
It was common at the time for girls to marry around 13.
By your standard, then, we can all agree that he was a pedophile because
Muhammad is said to have asked her to arrange for him to marry both. Traditional sources dictate that Aisha was six or seven years old when betrothed to Muhammad but the marriage was not consummated until she was nine or ten years old.
Your pedophile reference really doesn't make sense - even a century ago it was common all across Asia for girls to marry right when they hit puberty.
You get to marry kids (if you're into that sort of thing), if anyone disagrees with you then it's probably because they're infidels and you may kill them and take their stuff, and you can beat your wife to keep her in line as long as you do it right.
Like any religion, there are people across the whole spectrum. Plenty of Muslims completely disagree with everything you just said. There is a big difference between the Koran, that essentially all Muslims believe is the word of God, and the Hadiths which is a much longer text written by some scholars 200-300 years later documenting Muhammad's life. Many Muslims think the latter is utter bullshit.
Granted, there are also those who follow the Hadiths completely without room for interpretation and believe the things you mentioned, but my point is Islam, like any religion, had a wide spectrum of followers. Look at the middle ages - Islam was seen as much more progressive than Christianity at the time.
So.. you're saying it's OK for an organized religion to illegally harrass, threaten, and murder people.. as long as the person they're targeting has committed a "sin" that's not recoginzed as such by the law of their country.
Just because they believe it's murder doesn't make it so. I don't give a fucking rat's ass what their rationalization is - it's still wrong.
Your entire argument is "well, it's not the same because it's different", when it's obviously not different.
Fuck you and your apoligism.
I think we can all agree that there's a big difference between depictions of child molestation/rape and cartoons poking fun at a religious figure.
What? I fail to see ANY difference. What, you don't think no one has has ever felt that blasphemy was horrid, sick and depraved? I'm pretty sure those terms have been applied to all kinds of blasphemy from all kinds of religions.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
I don't *believe* in Free Speech because it already exists...
Do I really have to rephrase this?
The idea of freedom of speech is that everyone should have a right to freedom of expression. Freedom of speech is worthless if we accept physical retaliation for that expression. Then it's not much of a right (NSFW), is it?
If I went into the office tomorrow and my boss told me he'd cut my salary by 20%, I'd go and say something to him about it. A consequence of my saying something might mean I lose my job completely...
And your boss very likely has the right to do that.
Muslims do not have the right to kill people. In fact, death threats are one of the few areas of speech which, as far as I can tell, aren't protected.
I think I've said pretty much everything I want to, and I'm not going to dig up all of your responses. Instead, I should remind you: "Those who would sacrifice essential liberty for temporary safety deserve neither."
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Why not just hit the highlights? You either believe in the superstition in whole or you've simply made up your own re-interpreted derivative work that is uniquely yours and shouldn't be labeled as the original belief.
I guess one could always say... What do you expect from people who believe they are a product of incest not once, but at least twice. Adam, Eve had 3 sons. Eve was the first Cougar. Then god decided his populous game was going badly and flooded everyone out so the boat people got busy with each other. With that muddled of a gene pool it's surprising we've lasted this long.
Since Rationality and reason don't mix with religion I like the sound byte idea, play to the emotions. Otherwise if you just want to give a believer a headache ask any christian how free will can exist when the future has already been written in Revelations. Obviously not even your butterfly related actions can ever change the outcome in Revelations. Since there is no free will, how is there morality, or even sin or redemption, as you're just following a script?
Spoken like somebody who has the freedom to not give a rat's ass about all fellow humans.
Everyone has that right. That's not what I'm exercising here, though, or why would I champion freedom of speech for everyone, even those I disagree with?
Essentially, some asshole effectively killed the party for everybody in that country,
Essentially? Effectively? That's a lot of weasel words... And which asshole would that be? The guy who spawned the Facebook event, or the asshole who actually blocked it? No one forced them to block Facebook -- they did that on their own. They would've been entirely free to block only parts of Facebook, or to instead launch their own Draw Jesus Day event -- they could've handled it any number of ways other than outright censorship.
To what end? What have they achieved?
Good question.
The event has proved that entire countries are on the run -- censoring just to protect themselves from ideas they don't like.
Or if you mean the asshole who blocked Facebook, well, not much. Those who really want to see it will find ways around, and in the meantime, they've blocked their countrymen from a site which is presumably useful and popular. They also haven't censored the vast majority of the Internet, so one wonders what they hope to accomplish by blocking just this one instance of blasphemy -- there are even Mohammed ASCII-art drawings on Slashdot now.
Do you honestly think they should block Slashdot? Would you honestly blame the ACs for "ruining it" if that happened?
Just because you are free in your country does not mean you have any right in fanning the conflict between the citizens of a country and it's ruling theocracy.
Are you serious?
No one said "Rise up and overthrow your government." Someone posted something on Facebook, and the government chose to block it. The government thus chose to pursue a course of action which might lead to increased tension between it and its citizens.
How is this in any way my fault for speaking my mind half a world away?
And why is it so difficult to wrap your mind around this concept: Words and ideas have only the power you give them. If Islam didn't get its panties in a wad every time someone makes fun of Mo', those words and cartoons would have no power.
Think about it -- you probably felt a bit of anger there at the way I worded the above paragraph. I did that deliberately, to illustrate a point: They're just words. They do not even have the power to make you angry, if you do not allow it.
And I'll present this as evidence that I do care about my fellow humans. I used to be very angry, often. I let my anger control me. I've broken free from that, and I am much better for it. I am happier, healthier, and I make better decisions when I do not let anger guide me. At least right here, in this moment, I am trying to share that with you. I hope you, or someone reading this, is in a position to share that with those who are in a position to change the political situation in Pakistan.
Quite often the same folks who do shit like this, and turn around and claim they're making any kind of contribution to society.
Because clearly, all I do all day is draw Mohammed? Is that really what you think?
I have a summer internship starting soon. In the mean time, I'm preparing to go to a convention, where I'll be speaking about some software I've developed. I'm also learning a martial art, and looking for another to practice over the summer. In the fall, I will be going back to school.
Or is it that you think drawing Mohammed contributes nothing to society? Political cartoons have a long history of contributing to the discussion, and one of our most respected news sources is one w
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Being against child molestation is logical morality. Very, very, very few people will believe that raping a child is acceptable.
Big freakin deal. Since no child is molested in the process of drawing a cartoon all of that is irrelevant.
You might as well claim that all those movies out of hollywood are horrid and depraved since murder - an act certainly worse than molestation - is so frequently depicted.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
It's all about different interpretations. There are some passages about "false idols" that some sects interpret as meaning images are not permitted (eg:sunni), other sects do not agree with those interpretations and have no problem with (non-blasphemous) images (eg:shia).
Of course it goes without saying that the whole thing is just as rediculous as every other argument about the alleged desires of a supernatural being. It doesn't matter if we're talking about cartoons or the number of angels that can dance on a pinhead, none of those arguments deserve respect, especially when the offended party goes around advocating and participating in murder and general mahem. They are within their rights to self censor their own society and ban facebook but they can go fuck themselves if they want to use violence and threats in an attempt to intimidate the free speech society which I live in. IMHO Viacom and others who have caved in to their temper tantrums are the worst kind of cowards.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
One thing to note about that: the average age of the onset of puberty has become younger over the years, probably due to sufficient nutrition.
... in the last 2 centuries or so (there is no data before that).
I do understand your point, but I think that puberty seems like a pretty reasonable divider between "definitely a child" and "might possibly be an adult, depending on local culture".
Agreed.
However, we really can't say anything about Aisha in that respect. Age of puberty varies with many factors, of which nutrition is a very important one, but also race, and even social aspects. Speaking of nutrition, Aisha was a daughter of Abu Bakr, so she was raised in a rich merchant family. Of course, 10 is still rather lower than average even under these conditions, but an "average" is just that...
My point, anyway, is that we do not have anywhere near enough information on it to judge it for good or bad in any reasonable way. It may well be that Muhammad was a true pedophile by strict definition of this word - attracted to prepubescent children. Or it may be that Aisha was well-developed for her age.
In any case, the "Muhammad is a pedophile!" cliche does not even attempt to touch upon all this complexity. Its sole purpose is to evoke an instinctive negative emotional reaction in the listener by pushing one of the most sensitive societal norm buttons.
Well, that was fast. You're seriously going to compare drawing a few cartoons with signing orders for genocide?
Alright, first of all, examples of speech which is not protected are things like orders and threats. Actually telling someone to do something from a position of authority counts as an action, as does paying someone to do something (hiring a hit man). And while I'm not sure I agree with this part, death threats are not protected speech in the US.
The significant difference here is whether the speech has force and authority behind it. If you have a gun to my head, and you demand that I hand over my wallet, I can still refuse, but it would be stupid of me to do so. Make that demand without the force, and I can simply ignore you.
Even this doesn't immediately place all blame on Hitler. If the people he was speaking to were a bit more cautious and discriminating, there would have been no Nazi party, and he would have been dismissed as a lunatic. Indeed, the Nuremberg trials held that the Superior Orders defense is not sufficient -- in other words, while Hitler may have been guilty of giving orders, that doesn't mean every member of the Nazi party was simply, innocently following those orders.
Furthermore, Hitler had no power except that which people gave him. Had cooler heads prevailed early on, there would have been no Nazi party, and he would have been dismissed as a raving lunatic. It's also worth mentioning that there are still neo-Nazis in the US, and they're still allowed to freely express themselves, so long as it's merely expression -- rant all you want, but without an army to back it up, it's just ranting.
Let's tie this back to what I actually said:
No one can be forced by mere words to do anything they don't want to.
But Hitler had a lot more than mere words, didn't he? And he was doing a lot more than simply expressing himself -- he was giving orders and making threats, two things which are not considered protected speech.
Now, if Hitler was dismissed as a lunatic, and the Nazi party was never formed, does that make Hitler a good person? Of course not. The fact that I think certain speech should be protected does not mean I agree with that speech or think it's moral.
But that is the real difference here, isn't it? There may be many people in the US who think this "Draw Mohammed day" thing is immoral. The execs at Facebook itself might even think that. But no one is going to block that speech merely because they think it's immoral. Pakistan did.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!