Slashdot Mirror
The Implications of Google Restricting Access To Anti-Islam Film
ideonexus writes "While the decision has been a footnote in most news stories, the Washington Post is raising the question of what it means that Google can shut down access to the anti-Islam film in countries where that film has sparked riots, something the American government cannot do thanks to our First Amendment. A popular meme in the Information Age is that the Internet spreads democracy by enabling citizens to organize and speak out, but we forget that much of that speech is now hosted by third parties who are under no obligation to protect it."
that shutting down access to anything in this country can't be done by the American gubmint "thanks" to our First Amendment then let me sell you this bridge I own...
99% of the protesters haven't even seen the film (and won't bother to).
this movie is not at all "free-speech"! this movie is a conspiracy!!! this movie was designed to cause riots!!
watch the movie trailer, all parts with mohammed and anti muslim intent are COMPLETELY DUBBED IN!!
the actors themselves have stated that they did not know that the movie was about Islam, but was casted under the title "Dessert Warriors"
it screams psy-ops or simple chaos sowing.
First Amendment is BS. Read up on the Tarek Mehanna case .
Exactly four years ago this month I was finishing my work shift at a
local hospital. As I was walking to my car I was approached by two
federal agents. They said that I had a choice to make: I could do
things the easy way, or I could do them the hard way. The “easy “ way,
as they explained, was that I would become an informant for the
government, and if I did so I would never see the inside of a
courtroom or a prison cell. As for the hard way, this is it. Here I
am, having spent the majority of the four years since then in a
solitary cell the size of a small closet, in which I am locked down
for 23 hours each day. The FBI and these prosecutors worked very
hard—and the government spent millions of tax dollars – to put me in
that cell, keep me there, put me on trial, and finally to have me
stand here before you today to be sentenced to even more time in a
cell.
In the weeks leading up to this moment, many people have offered
suggestions as to what I should say to you. Some said I should plead
for mercy in hopes of a light sentence, while others suggested I would
be hit hard either way. But what I want to do is just talk about
myself for a few minutes.
When I refused to become an informant, the government responded by
charging me with the “crime” of supporting the mujahideen fighting the
occupation of Muslim countries around the world. Or as they like to
call them, “terrorists.” I wasn’t born in a Muslim country, though. I
was born and raised right here in America and this angers many people:
how is it that I can be an American and believe the things I believe,
take the positions I take? Everything a man is exposed to in his
environment becomes an ingredient that shapes his outlook, and I’m no
different. So, in more ways than one, it’s because of America that I
am who I am.
When I was six, I began putting together a massive collection of comic
books. Batman implanted a concept in my mind, introduced me to a
paradigm as to how the world is set up: that there are oppressors,
there are the oppressed, and there are those who step up to defend the
oppressed. This resonated with me so much that throughout the rest of
my childhood, I gravitated towards any book that reflected that
paradigm – Uncle Tom’s Cabin, The Autobiography of Malcolm X, and I
even saw an ethical dimension to The Catcher in the Rye.
By the time I began high school and took a real history class, I was
learning just how real that paradigm is in the world. I learned about
the Native Americans and what befell them at the hands of European
settlers. I learned about how the descendents of those European
settlers were in turn oppressed under the tyranny of King George III.
I read about Paul Revere, Tom Paine, and how Americans began an armed
insurgency against British forces – an insurgency we now celebrate as
the American revolutionary war. As a kid I even went on school field
trips just blocks away from where we sit now. I learned about Harriet
Tubman, Nat Turner, John Brown, and the fight against slavery in this
country. I learned about Emma Goldman, Eugene Debs, and the struggles
of the labor unions, working class, and poor. I learned about Anne
Frank, the Nazis, and how they persecuted minorities and imprisoned
dissidents. I learned about Rosa Parks, Malcolm X, Martin Luther King,
and the civil rights struggle. I learned about Ho Chi Minh, and how
the Vietnamese fought for decades to liberate themselves from one
invader after another. I learned about Nelson Mandela and the fight
against apartheid in South Africa. Everything I learned in those years
confirmed what I was beginning to learn when I was six: that
throughout history, there has been a constant struggle between the
oppressed and their oppressors. With each struggle I learned
All Internet 'speech' is hosted by third parties, if you go far enough up the chain. Even if you avoid Youtube etc., and post a video/article to your website, someone can complain to your webhost and get your hosting yanked. Colocate or own a blade in a datacenter? Datacenter owner can yank you. Use Akamai or another CDN? They can yank you. If they're getting DDoSed because of 'speech' on your site, they'll find an excuse in their EULA to justify dropping you.
Now let's say you own a datacenter. Your BGP peers can disconnect from you, stranding you from the Internet. If you find a webhost that cares about free speech, people can jump over them and get their provider to disconnect the entire webhost (this has happened before).
P2P infrastructure depends on peers wanting to connect to you. If you're seen as 'toxic' then noone will.
Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
Let me see, the film has caused a violent backlash and Google is wanting to block people from seeing in areas that further cause a violent backlash? I'm not at all concerned about the implications. As stated many times, it's their service, if Al Qaeda want's to spread it they can make VHS (VCD?) copies or whatever and do so. The film maker who is certainly enjoying the violent response (that he aimed for) is more than welcome to ship copies anywhere in the world he wants.
Spare me the false logic arguments of "what's next?". Google does not have to be the hosting provider of hate speech if it doesn't want to. And they certainly have the right to be selective on what airs where. I see it as good "citizenship" in a way. They already can remove my videos calling for the mass murder of all Slashdot readers - just because, never mind it's not even constitutionally protected speech.
I'm pretty sure by looking back now at Google, Twitter and Facebook they didn't discourage spreading information that lead to violent revolutions (Wikileaks still shows up in searches for example) in these countries when the causes were noble (i.e. toppling un-wanted and brutal/corrupt leaders). The track record thus far has shown they self censor when appropriate.
I get slippery slopes and all that - and I get that you don't have the right to not be offended... but today money is speech, corporations are people and hate speech is lauded over violent reactions. Even shooting and killing your own citizens to defend an embassy of another country isn't enough to satisfy those who want to further fan the flames of hate. In what world is is okay to continue answering hate speech with more hate speech and then cry foul when it comes down to blows? There is less civility in civilization every day. What happened to "mutual respect"? Why sabotage years of peace just because you can?
For goodness sake, do you think the people who died want the video spread even more? Don't you think their families hold both parties accountable (of course the killers more so - but still)?
Get your Unix fortune now!
linky:
http://youtu.be/1RagKWM8ldk
What has Southern USA got to do with this?
They can "host" a Tea Party on their front lawn, or host a Occupy Lawn! on their front lawn as they damn well please. Around election time, folks in the US put up signs on their front lawns saying "Obama's Cool!" or "Romney Rocks!" No one can force them to put up or take down a sign.
As long as it's not violating any laws, Google can choose to host whatever they want on their YouTube. It's THEIR site and THEIR policy. There is nothing "new" about this. Newspapers have always been free to print or not print what they want.
You want an Islamically Correct video site? Go build one yourself!
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
To be precise, they actually have no obligation to host your free speech, especially not in countries where there is no free speech.
OH SNAP
http://youtu.be/1RagKWM8ldk
Those protesters believe that the good name and fame of their prophet needs to be protected at all cost,
just like the US commenter here believe that "free speech"needs to be protected.
The actual video made does not go above all the cat video's and "charlie bites my finger" video that are posted on youtube. those need to be protected .....
What has Southern USA got to do with this?
That's what you make of it. It has everything to do with creationism, neo-cons, anti-government or anti-anything groups who only want to mess things up because probably someone gets better, most probably financially, when things get messy.
Just remember that Islam is the religion of peace and tolerance, so they keep telling us.
Therefore you need to indicate the chances of any conspiracy theory being true are lower than the chances of it being false before you can admit a dismission of a "conspiracy theory" is anything more lazy ignorance.
Personally, I would allow all videos (except, say child porn + DMCA violations). The rest would be dealt with by a voluntary rating system, like Google SafeSearch.
But Google already has a censorship system called the Community Guidelines. Among other things, it bans "hate speech":
Regardless what you think about that concept, it's already in the guidelines. So, if you want to apply it consistently, unemotionally, geekily, you'd ban this video, which was thought by the director himself to be so possibly offensive that he didn't even tell the cast, opting to dub in the offensive lines during editing.
Keep in mind also the fact that AFAIK, Youtube deleted a lot of videos a while back that purported to explain the point of view of people fighting the US military in various countries at the behest of Senator Lieberman.
Again, hate speech is a really nebulous concept, but it'd really be hard to argue that this Youtube wasn't hate speech as defined above.
The image of the Hebrew prophet Moses high-fiving Jesus Christ as both are having their erect penises vigorously masturbated by Ganesha, all while the Hindu deity anally penetrates Buddha with his fist reportedly went online at 6:45 p.m. EDT, after which not a single bomb threat was made against the organization responsible, nor did the person who created the cartoon go home fearing for his life in any way. Though some members of the Jewish, Christian, Hindu, and Buddhist faiths were reportedly offended by the image, sources confirmed that upon seeing it, they simply shook their heads, rolled their eyes, and continued on with their day.
I would like to see what exactly caused these riots. Link please?
Sure. Here you go.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks
Look at your calendar. What anniversary just passed?
These attacks were far to well coordinated and planned for them to be simply an unusually-bad outbreak of the typical muslim-outrage insta-riot over a rather shoddy YT video.
Besides, look at the date on the video. That video had been up for a couple of months with maybe 10 views.
The video story is a distraction thrown up to cover the fact that the US is being attacked because the radicals sense the US leadership is weak. Our government pushes the video excuse to cover their own incompetence and weakness.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
http://www.upworthy.com/we-saw-the-violence-freedom-of-speech-can-spark-now-lets-see-the-love?g=2&c=cp1
How about just supporting the concept of democracy for once?
Play Command HQ online
If someone dubbed over the movie "E.T." and made it a sex movie about kids being shagged by an alien and their parents and the police, how long would it last?
I don't think there are many E.T. worshippers out there. However Universal Pictures would probably send a DMCA takedown notice quite soon.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
A popular meme in the Information Age is that the Internet spreads democracy by enabling citizens to organize and speak out...
A rather one sided meme. The internet spreads hate and intolerance as well using the same principles. The internet is both a conduit and a doorstep shaped by the capacity to make perception what we want.
Shai Schticks:"You don't make peace with friends, you make peace with enemies"
Why? When the US does, such as when they allow for free speech, people in the Middle East goes nuts and starts killing Americans. Democracy comes after free speech. You can't have democracy without free speech, and currently the demonstrators are demonstrating against democracy and free speech.
For years, the GEMA (German RIAA) has forced Google to indiscriminately block any video with protected music in it from playing in Germany.
Wait, nobody knew that Google was a private company and can do pretty much whatever they want in terms of limiting access to content?
You are welcome on my lawn.
Rubbish. A movie can not have the intent to offend since a movie can not offend. The only person who decides who is offended is the person who gets offended at stuff. I can say whatever I want to you, if you get offended by it that is your problem, not mine. You can chose not to be offended by it. Adults generally do when children say offensive things. When retards say offensive things too.
In this case the "offender" and the "offendee" are equally retarded, and boom, you have a boom.
People supporting free speech should sponsor one such movie a week, hitting every major and minor religious figure in history, until these retards stops electing to be offended by something that is not offensive.
No One Murdered Because Of This Image
https://archive.org/details/EbenMoglen-WhyFreedomOfThoughtRequiresFreeMediaAndWhyFreeMedia
Capitalist platforms will not afford robust privacy or free speech.
And I could argue that as atheists aren't smart enough to know they should believe in God, it's obvious they couldn't have produced this film. There's a logical fallacy in here somewhere, if only we could find it.
"We receive as friendly that which agrees with, we resist with dislike that which opposes us" - Faraday
Atheism isn't AGAINST GOD. It's a nonbelief in God. Atheism isn't a fanatical belief that there cannot be a god, but the recognition that no god has shown itself even once.
You're still, as a faitheist, insisting that any and all positions MUST be a position of faith, since that is all that you think defines you. But atheism isn't a faith, in the same way as not collecting stamps is not a hobby.
There is ABSOLUTEY no need for any atheist to make this movie. And there is no credo that would impel atheists to collect together and make it.
However, those who DO believe in THEIR god and believes that the Muslims want to put a false god over them, DO have a reason to do this.
If I don't like what YouTube is doing, there are many other competing services I can use, including hosting my own content myself. If I don't like what my government is doing, I have no alternatives. What they say is "law", it must be obeyed.
... so you will attract the largest number of customers.
As governments have a monopoly on the law, only they are obligated to protect the rights of citizens. All other actors on the scene are engaging voluntarily, and are obliged only to act in their own best interest.
This is as it should be. "Don't be evil" is as much a business principle as it is a statement of personal ethics. Don't be evil
"We receive as friendly that which agrees with, we resist with dislike that which opposes us" - Faraday
Well maybe if Google gave an "opt out" button so the people in the mid-east would realize the vast majority of people in the US don't care to see this video and actually think it's disgusting just like the Virgin Mary made out of tampons. I never saw that either and just like this video I hope Karma catches up to the 'artists' .
What are doing is called creating political correctness.
testing out my trending skills
As others have noted, rossdee asks the right question, then gives factually the wrong answer. Everyone embarrasses themselves on occasion. It's one way we learn and grow.
No, it will not, because populations in the west do not riot and murder people if there are videos they find offensive. Maybe if their team loses a football game ...
And I could argue that as atheists aren't smart enough to know they should believe in God
No, you could not. It's impossible to argue that someone should believe in something that most likely doesn't exist, since the supporting data of existence is non-existent.
We also know that with intelligence comes non-belief. With higher levels of education also comes non-belief. Intelligent people with a higher education simply do not believe in various superstitions to the level with which uneducated dumb-asses do. In the US, since you can get a higher degree with no scientific training whatsoever, the co-variation between belief and education, though strong, is weaker than in Europe for example. The more education you have in the sciences the lower the chance of you running around believing in mumbo-jumbo is however. The numbers are quite staggering, also in the US.
Why? Because religion is a complete load of wank and the successful ones are the ones that scare the shit out of their believers about leaving (see scientology), hound them far more radically if they leave (see scientology) and insist that anyone who ISN'T of the same faith is
a) evil incarnate
b) destined to hell for eternal punishment
c) out to destroy the REAL believers
(see scientology).
The only difference between Muslim, Christianity and Scientology is we accept the idea that Scientology has been made up by a bloke.
Piss Christ didn't cause Christians to kill people...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piss_Christ#Reception
Serrano received death threats and hate mail, and lost grants due to the controversy.
...
...
The work was vandalized at the National Gallery of Victoria, Australia, and gallery officials reported receiving death threats in response to Piss Christ.
During a retrospective of Serrano's work at the National Gallery of Victoria in 1997, the then Catholic Archbishop of Melbourne, George Pell, sought an injunction from the Supreme Court of Victoria to restrain the National Gallery of Victoria from publicly displaying Piss Christ, which was not granted. Some days later, one patron attempted to remove the work from the gallery wall, and two teenagers later attacked it with a hammer.
Just because no one was actually killed, it does not make one kind of religious violence more civilized or rational than the other.
Nor is it unheard of for Christian religious fanatics to commit indiscriminate acts of violence over a movie.
You can't troll people who don't CHOOSE to be trolled!
Now that's being a bit obtuse.
We ARE talking here about people who believe that they have a direct line to the creator of the Universe by kneeling on the floor, putting their hands in a certain position and pronouncing a special incantation.
The kind of people who get trolled by pieces of toast, FFS.
It's not like they are the most reasonable bunch in the world, capable of rational thought when that one special topic comes up.
After all, they are all conditioned to believe in one form of hell or another, where those who are against the above mentioned creator of the Universe and his laws must end up.
Where they too will end up as well if they accidentally eat certain food on a certain day or if they forget to do a certain ritual or if they say the name of the above mentioned creatorTM.
And then there's all that thing about impending Armageddon.
Seriously, what do you expect to get from people who are conditioned to be in constant fear not only for their own existence, but for the existence of EVERYTHING if someone insults their creatorTM?
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
It would have been a great porn movie, though I have seen better acting in porn movies.
John Stuart Mill, On Liberty
We have now recognised the necessity to the mental well-being of mankind (on which all their other well-being depends) of freedom of opinion, and freedom of the expression of opinion, on four distinct grounds; which we will now briefly recapitulate.
First, if any opinion is compelled to silence, that opinion may, for aught we can certainly know, be true. To deny this is to assume our own infallibility.
Secondly, though the silenced opinion be an error, it may, and very commonly does, contain a portion of truth; and since the general or prevailing opinion on any subject is rarely or never the whole truth, it is only by the collision of adverse opinions that the remainder of the truth has any chance of being supplied.
Thirdly, even if the received opinion be not only true, but the whole truth; unless it is suffered to be, and actually is, vigorously and earnestly contested, it will, by most of those who receive it, be held in the manner of a prejudice, with little comprehension or feeling of its rational grounds. And not only this, but, fourthly, the meaning of the doctrine itself will be in danger of being lost, or enfeebled, and deprived of its vital effect on the character and conduct: the dogma becoming a mere formal profession, inefficacious for good, but cumbering the ground, and preventing the growth of any real and heartfelt conviction, from reason or personal experience.
Being offended does not mean you have the right to censor someone nor does it mean that you have the right to lash out at others. If the movie bothered you, I refer you to JSM's points 3 & 4. Explain why the movie is wrong and fight against its bigotry.
This is actually a fascinating distinction.
Calling the President a "poopyhead" doesn't actually hold any implied physical danger what-so-ever. Saying I am gonna _________ is a future tense action statement with a verb, sure, that would be worth looking at.
The fun starts when "loss of honor" becomes worth retaliation, as another poster below mentioned. So while there's no physical action planned, "the loss of honor is unforgiveable" etc etc.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
Is that you posting from the afterlife, Christopher Hitchens?
From what I know of this "prophet" Mohammed, he was a good guy, and just like Jesus Christ, he taught love and respect for fellow human beings. He pulled his group of people together, got them working towards a better standard of living, for that time. He helped to pull his people out of poverty. Taught non-violence. But as he was nearing the end of his life, he realized they were going to create a religion with him as their central "savior", and he didn't want them to do that. Like Jesus, Mohammed told his people, "No! There's nothing special about me. I'm a man just like you!" But they didn't listen, and went ahead and made a religion about him anyway. And the Crusades created a hatred of anyone non-muslim (thanks, Catholic Church!). There will be more time needed for the un-enlightened Moslems in that part of the world to 'assimilate' with the rest of the world's free society. It's going to take a couple generations to get there, but they will. Bigotry in the U.S. still exists, though it's far less than what it was in the 1960's. The older racist generations are dying out, getting replaced with more tolerant and educated people. The same will happen eventually in the Middle East. It'll just take time.
I believe this onion cartoon explains the difference between Islam and the other major religions well:
http://www.theonion.com/articles/no-one-murdered-because-of-this-image,29553/?ref=auto
that shutting down access to anything in this country can't be done by the American gubmint "thanks" to our First Amendment then let me sell you this bridge I own...
I think there is a line which must be drawn with regard to hosting films. If Google did not take down this film then Google would not be justified in taking down the next Bin Laden video or Anwar al-Awlaki video. I think from a business perspective and a global security perspective it makes sense for Google to take down any material which is inciting terrorist attacks or assassinations.
We might not know certain things about that material. It might contain signals to trained sleeper cells and for that reason alone it should be removed.
So are idiots in america viewing this as a freedom of speech issue.
This is not a free speech issue, it is a freedom of religion issue. Freedom of religion is not your freedom to censor, it is my freedom to do what I want with religion. I can follow them to the letters, I can take and leave any parts, I can completely ignore it and I can mock it. The right to mock religion is a important part of religious freedom. Consider the following:
Islam claim that Jesus is only a average prophet like many others, he is even not the best one(that would be Muhammad, right?). From the point of view of a Christian, that believe Jesus is the half-devine son of God, this is extremely offensive. Your right to worship is base on your right to mock someone else's religion.
Now take a deep breath and take your stupid hate cult back to the bronze age where it belong.
Thanks,
The civilized world.
I'm accusing you of political correctness: you have to call it educating, when it isn't.
testing out my trending skills
If you go online and threaten the president it wont take long for your free speech to put you in a cell. So how some right wing nutjobs can be allowed to kill an ambassador and hundreds of thick rioting foriegners I dont understand at all
You don't understand this because you're seeing insults and threats as being one and the same thing. They are not, and that's why you're confused. The film is pretty shitty, but no excuse for the violent responses its seen. Any government censoring in order to protect hypersensitive and violent people from taking offence is going to be very busy indeed.
If you read anything about how actual assassination attempts take place it usually never is a situation where some guy makes a video threatening the President. What happens is some cult makes a video quoting scriptures that only the cult can make sense of and something in the message acts as a subliminal artifact to sleeper agents who act on it.
The CIA knows how to do this. Intelligence agencies know how to do this. The film maker according to reports I've read on Wired and the SmokingGun is a former FBI informant. So he actually would have the sort of background and training to pull that off and you cannot rule out that he could be an actual terrorist or part of a terrorist cell. The entire situation is as fishy as Sirhan Sirhan.
Could he be a double agent? I find it very difficult to believe this entire chain of events wasn't planned. It looks planned in such a way so as to seem spontaneous when if you look closely at it you realize it's not.
You don't understand this because you're seeing insults and threats as being one and the same thing. They are not...
*dingdingdingding* We have a winner!
Understanding this distinction is key to this whole situation (the Muslim rioters don't get it, either), and the Preacher's post merits many Insightful/Informative mods.
Whether the film is an insult or threat is a matter of how you interpret it. The film if you're a Muslim contains subliminal messages that only a Muslim or someone with some background would understand. For that reason the film is like a dogwhistle in that the true nature of the film is only going to be understood by the most fundamentalist Muslim believers.
I don't believe this film was just created to inspire anger. I believe it was designed to inspire and trigger terrorist attacks.
How many "COEXIST" bumper sticks do you thing are on car bumpers in the Middle East?
Conservative, mod down for violating
No, for a Christian, Jesus is 100% divine.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
This is actually a fascinating distinction.
Calling the President a "poopyhead" doesn't actually hold any implied physical danger what-so-ever. Saying I am gonna _________ is a future tense action statement with a verb, sure, that would be worth looking at.
The fun starts when "loss of honor" becomes worth retaliation, as another poster below mentioned. So while there's no physical action planned, "the loss of honor is unforgiveable" etc etc.
That is all subjective. Calling the President a name isn't a threat, but it could be perceived as a threat depending on the context and culture.
Hardly just one. Christianity today is quite moderate (mostly, there are exceptions), but it has had it's inquisitions and holy wars in the past. A large part of the reason the US was founded with a secular government was to avoid the christian-on-christian violence seen in Europe, where Protestants and Catholics had been taking turns slaughtering each other and many minority sects were banned outright. Judaism lacks the numbers to do much today other than take part in some territorial squabbles, but their own historical texts describe how they came to possess Israel by first emptying it of former occupants, and you can see the propaganda still in there describing the previous tribes as so evil the land rejected them and God personally ordered even the children slaughtered to exterminate their line. I don't know a great deal about the other significent religions, but I'm sure a little research would reveal even Buddhism - usually regarded as one of the most non-violent religions around - must have a few skeletons in the closet.
> much of that speech is now hosted by third-parties
> who are under no obligation to protect it
Such has always been the case. If Ben Franklin wanted his letter to the editor to be printed in a newspaper, he either had to convince the owner of the newspaper to include it (this was traditionally done by writing something they would consider worth printing) or else set up his own press and run his own paper. Since Gutenberg, freedom of the press has always been the sole province those who maintain the press. Before that, it was whoever kept scribes around to hand-copy everything.
If Google won't host your video, you can find someone else who will. Failing that, you can set up your own server and host it yourself. You may not get as much traffic as Google would, just as in the days of yore your little startup newspaper that you ran out of your back shed wouldn't start out with as many subscribers as a big established city paper. The cure for that is to publish content that people keep wanting to read and discuss and refer to and tell others about -- just as it has always been since antiquity. (If anything, this can happen much faster now than it could even twenty years ago, though as always people have to actually be interested in your content, or they'll ignore it. If people aren't going to read your manifesto, you are you gonna stop 'em? Nonetheless, if you publish something people actually want to see, word does get around.)
Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
To be fair why not allow fundamentalist Muslims to release their Jihad videos to Youtube translated into english for American audiences? Freespeech right?
The Hubbard scam is such an obvious scam that calling it a religion is just lending the scam some credibility.
If you're going to convince me that you're truly Muslim - or at least decently educated, then you need to be able to transliterate "God is Great" in a way that follows the accepted norms. Maybe you're being dialectical, but Islam is based on classical Arabic, and there's a "proper" way to render that phrase in English. As it is, it makes me wonder if you're truly Muslim or just pouring gasoline on the fire.
As far as I'm concerned, religious displays of violence are major sins, regardless of whether they're Muslim, Christian, or whatever. They're the ultimate in hubris, because they're basically saying that God, the Almighty, is too weak and too feeble to protect Himself, and so must enlist crowds of murderous men to do the job. God, if He is Who you say he is, could do a Sodom-and-Gomorrah on any place in the Universe, or even wipe the entire planet, if he felt the need to defend Himself. We see every day how the Earth and the heavens can be subjected to earthquakes, volcanoes, hurricanes, plagues, meteor swarms - even supernovae. And that 's just in an apparently undirected way. If God can bind Leviathian, those are the least of punishments he could aim at the infidels if that was His desire. These mobs are about as meaningful as if a nest of ants were to rush to my defense against another nest of ants. As the Qur'an states repeatedly: "Let God be the judge".
Likewise, I'm very much opposed to suppression of offensive speech, because if you have faith, you understand that God is too powerful to be overcome by lies. That lies may eclipse the truth, but the truth will eventually prevail. And that the best way to expose lies is to bring them forth into the light of day for all to observe how their details fail, not to suppress them in the hope that no one will believe them.
There are a lot of ideals that America has discarded in the last 30 years or so, but one that we've managed to hold on to is the idea that free speech means free people. In a more authoritarian country, such slanders as this "film trailer" would either become underground "forbidden knowledge" (with all the appeal inherent), or officially sanctioned. Either way, the message would be legitimized. Instead, the controversy enabled by free speech and the freedom to view and dissect this work has exposed the tawdry underpinnings of this scheme and the lack of moral character of those behind it. Instead of undermining Islam, it may, in fact, have done the opposite. We learn a lot about people (and religions, and ideologies) by the calibre of their enemies.
So are idiots in america viewing this as a freedom of speech issue.
What is it then if not a freedom of speech issue? The only effective way to fight idiocy is to drag it to broad daylight and humiliate it publicly. If you can't criticize others because you might hurt their feelings, they'll never find out there's something wrong. Yes, the movie is retarded and offensive, but you're free to just ignore it or you can respond with another movie that's even more retarded and offensive to the other side.
As long as there are huge masses of people who are willing to kill over a retarded movie, this kind of retarded movies will need to be made. I know it sucks to be caught in the crossfire between two camps of retards but the alternative to a little disgust is to stay sorrounded by retards forever.
The film "caused" nothing. Islamists CHOSE violence, which reflects on their Superstition, not the film.
That's like saying that shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater did not cause the subsequent injuries and deaths - theater goers chose to trample those people.
There is a very real burden of blame and responsibility on the creator of the movie, which was clearly created to be inflammatory.
From its production values, that was clearly not free speech nor art - that was flamebaiting.
An act of verbal violence, hoping to incite a response of actual violence from some group of religious fanatics somewhere.
There being plenty of such groups around the world, just waiting for an excuse to commit acts of violence against those they perceive as enemies, Nakoula's film is no different than a football hooligan vandalizing a pub of the opposite team's fans right before the big game.
Saying that the original act didn't cause the riots afterwards is ignoring the evidence of a very clear chain of cause and effect.
...and is well worth the few casualties the Islamists inflict.
That's what they said!
Only their rationalization is a bit different. But they are completely with you on the "few casualties" part.
If _I_ attack Superstition that makes me not PC and a Bad Man.
If you are actually after a positive result you shouldn't "attack" their superstition. Don't stoop to that level.
Instead, expose it. Both to reason and to the truth.
Superstition, religious or otherwise, is a house of cards trying to support the entirety of the Universe.
It collapses on its own as soon as anyone starts prodding it instead of praising it.
Well, have some Superstition direct from the source! In your face, by their choice.
http://www.nowtheendbegins.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/us-ambassador-christopher-stevens-killed-body-dragged-through-streets-by-muslims-islam-religion-of-peace-2.jpg
You are letting your emotions cloud your judgement. Looking at humanitarian effort, you are seeing violence and hate.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/13/us-libya-ambassador-assault-idUSBRE88C02Q20120913
Meanwhile, Stevens, 52, had been found by local people and taken, unrecognized, to a hospital, around 1 a.m. A doctor failed to revive him and pronounced him dead of smoke inhalation.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
A devine being can't die, on a cross or in any other way.
...that the almighty and all-powerfull god CAN'T make a rock so heavy he himself can't lift it?
Also, that's a very... "specific" view on christian approach to the divinity of Jesus.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
You know what would be kinda cool? If, on these political threads, all comments had the rating.
I come here for the love
And I could argue that as atheists aren't smart enough to know they should believe in God, it's obvious they couldn't have produced this film. There's a logical fallacy in here somewhere, if only we could find it.
Atheists just are smart and curious enough to ask "which god?"
The problem is that some of these people see these rights as imposed by the West. No amount of John Stuart Mill quotes will help. The Foreign Minister of Egypt had the gall to suggest that we restrict the 1st Amendment to fix this "problem" yesterday.
once again gullable uneducated muslims being played, my money's on the Iranian's, at any rate , the people who profit most from this film , are Islamist's , and they know how to play the Children of Allah,
Why "religion" ? You make it sound like all religions have their followers pull this crap, when in reality ... it's only one of them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_violence
All religions are absolutist philosophies, with very specific ideas of good and evil based not on real life but on imaginary properties proscribed by their own scripture.
As such, they are all destined to clash with the real world sooner or later.
When that happens, there is really no choice for someone who's high on religion - you're either on the side of god, angels and good or you're on the side of evil.
And evil, as we all know, must be vanquished. Man's law be damned. We're talking higher power here.
Abortion clinic bombers don't think that they are killing doctors - they are just doing god's work, eliminating the child murderers.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
I'm opposed to oppression of offensive speech because it is so bad that intelligent people learn better why they shouldn't use it when they see it.
It seems odd to question the legitimacy of a person's faith on the basis of whether they translate a phrase a certain way. Kind of like you can't be Jewish if you turned on a light on Shabbat, or you can't be Catholic if you failed to read the Pope's latest proclamation.
-- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
If someone is willing to kill over an offensive movie, ask them to stop.
If they don't, that's what marines are for.
-- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
...it lacks proper promotion as there are plenty of blasphemy laws out there.
Indians are probably just waiting for a chance to at least burn someone in effigy over it.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
YouTube is not the sole source of videos on the Internet. There are multiple other sources. And, if those sources start censoring videos, you can set up your own host and display the video there, you can torrent it, you can send it via e-mail, you can do a lot of other things.
Governments are monopolies, and their monopoly is coercive power. You do any of the above to circumvent their censorship and they can and will hunt you down, break into your apartment and haul your ass off to jail. Whether you get beat up in the process, is their option.
The only person who decides who is offended is the person who gets offended at stuff. I can say whatever I want to you, if you get offended by it that is your problem, not mine.
Never heard of "fighting words" have you?
In the USA and the UK, if you deliberately provoke someone and they become violent, the Judge will blame you, not them.
You don't get to breech the peace and then blame the other guy for being provoked.
This is a long standing common law, that was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court.
Whether this applies to a video that's offending people in another country is... highly questionable, but morally I think the principle stands true.
Freedom of speech has always had limits.
/I'd encourage you to test out your local laws regarding breech of the peace if you really believe that you can say whatever you want and the offended party will be held responsible for kicking the shit out of you.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Let's all be insensitive about each others culture, I'm sure we will have a better society
I have an idea - let us instead not look at things that we know will offend us, as an alternative to declaring what other people are permitted to say and hear.
I'm opposed to oppression of offensive speech because it is so bad that intelligent people learn better why they shouldn't use it when they see it.
It seems odd to question the legitimacy of a person's faith on the basis of whether they translate a phrase a certain way. Kind of like you can't be Jewish if you turned on a light on Shabbat, or you can't be Catholic if you failed to read the Pope's latest proclamation.
Transliteration is not the same thing as translation. "Allah Akhbar" is the generally-accepted transliteration of the Arabic phrase which is generally translated into English as "God is Great". If I was to back-transliterate "Allah hoakbar", the letters would be very different. At best, it's a bad rendition of "Allahu Akbar", which is how it's spoken. Bad renditions typically mean that either the writer is using a dialect (and religions do tend to prefer formal, standardized language), that the writer is illiterate (it does happen), or that the writer is ignorant. Ignorance comes in many flavors, some few of which are Muslim, but likewise many of which are non-Muslim trolls.
I'd be more accommodating, but when you're defending the faith (whatever that faith may be), it's incumbent to do it in a way that does credit to the faith. Something that the 9/11 crowd certainly didn't do.
I would bet Google wasn't the only one hosting the video at that point and I would also bet they know that. That way everyone gets what they want. They look slightly better like they're doing something while at the same time, they know there's probably 50 mirrors of the video so they already let it "get out."
I am absolutely floored by the notion that there are still journalists and media who believe that Google is not already in the pocket of the government and is not thriving merely because of that relationship.
Never heard of "fighting words" have you?
Yes, when five year old (and equivalents) talk.
In the USA and the UK, if you deliberately provoke someone and they become violent, the Judge will blame you, not them
So, if I call you a moron and you punch me, then the judge will blame me? Just shows how un-civilized people are.
test out your local laws
They are quite definite, the response must be measured against the provocation. In other words, if your response to my "you're a moron" is violent, you will be the one to blame. As in any civilized society. A measured response would be "at least I know who my father is". An adult response would be a lifted eye brow and turning ones back on the retard. Perhaps you and your kind are not adult.
In the USA and the UK, if you deliberately provoke someone and they become violent, the Judge will blame you, not them.
No, the judge will blame both participants. "It takes two to tango" and all that. Violence is a path chosen by all the participants. It is very, very rare that "he came at me out of nowhere." Read some of Marc MacYoung's work on this topic.
Violence between grown men is basically a socially acceptable way for them to "do it" with each other. Straight guys don't have sex with each other, they fight each other. But it's really the same kind of interaction. "You, me, let's do this."
A movie can not have the intent to offend
There are entire professions dedicated to intentionally offending people. Acerbic entertainers like Lisa Lampanelli and Howard Stern use intentionally offensive statements and behavior to entertain. And it is not limited to comic, ironic, or throughtless statements: Rush Limbaugh, Michael Moore, and Richard Dawkins all use intentionally offensive statements as a rhetorical device to promote their views and their work. Denying the existence of the intent to offend is utterly ridiculous.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
I thought that Jesus was only 1/3 divine.
I hope this also opens our eyes to the unconstitutional suppression of religious speech in schools, government, and public venues. In modern times the word religion should be defined as the set of beliefs by which you define your universe and actions that are a product thereof. In the case of a person who says they have belief in no deity but hold to scientific/philosophic interpretation of where we come from and why, even if that person has little to do with research or philosophy, he/she has the same amount of religion as the average Christian who believes in the resurrection of the Son of God but is not involved in the church. They may both support their views with second hand information, albeit hearsay or incomplete. They both believe in something and trust the perspective and evidence of the word of others to define their worldview. Refusing to listen to or be offended by a public prayer is the same as refusing to do classwork because you 'don't believe in evolution.' No individual can define the religion of the masses unless a law is passed restricting the free speech of that religion. In other words, we've swapped the restriction of heretical speech for the restriction of religious speech and that's no good either.
What are the implications of Google blocking the film? Probably not that great if it's already on one of the other kajillion-and-one media sharing sites or being personally hosted by anyone with a vested interest in riling up one side or the other.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
There is a difference. A man makes a movie that some people find offensive ( i would wager 99% of the people rioting havent seen it either) one group of people call for a boycott, complain and it is the end of it. Another group starts rioting, starts invading american soil (embassies are the soil of the country that is there) and kill people who have NOTHING to do with the thing they are upset about.
to recap
one group, gets mad, writes letters, moves on
group 2 starts murdering people and destroying everything.
yeah so instead of complaining about americans who are saying this is a freedom of speech issue, you should be standing up against those idiots who are murdering people
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Censorship has been happening at all levels since the begging of time. You really need to have have a look at the documentary "This Film Is Not Yet Rated" to see how ludicrous any complaint against Youtube is. Basically the church gets a veto on all moves that are show in the US.
There are entire professions dedicated to intentionally offending people
Yes, and their primary task is identifying children who will listen and then make them selves to be offended.
I am not saying there are no people who will be offended, I am saying they would not be offended had they been grown-ups rather than little children with even littler egos.
Denying the existence of the intent to offend is utterly ridiculous
Yes, I should have phrased that slightly different. I movie can not have the intent to offend, it can only have the intent to have some immature ego-less moron create offence in his brain (what little there is).
agnosticism is the philosophy that no knowledge (gnosticism) can ever be drawn onto whether gods exist or not. Atheist is the disbelief in the existence of gods. Usually the two combine, you xan be a gnostic theist (believer ; but miracle and evidence of gods existence abund), agnostic theist (gods can only be believed as faith without evidence) , agnostc atheist (there is no evidence for gods), gnostic atheist (there is no god). Mind you ,you can also be atheist and gave a faith (belief im buddah for example , animism, etc...).
if you look up infidel or belief poll you will see that gnostic atheist are about 30% the rest are agnostic atheist, which is a very strong and rational position in absence of evidence.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
I've never heard of a single Christian who has that view. Not that they don't exist, but they've got to be somewhat rare.
Analyzing the actual claim, though, reveals an apparent logical inconsistency:
The only reason Jesus was able to be resurrected is because he was purely God, and sinless. Had he been half human prior to death, he would have been neither sinless, nor purely God, therefore the resurrection could not have happened.
"City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
Excuse the language but my sincerest fuck you, being a muslim i find this highly offensive.
I find Islam and many of the values it promotes to be highly offensive.
Let's all be insensitive about each others culture, I'm sure we will have a better society.
So if you want to be sensitive towards my values, you would need to ban Islam from public life. Do you think that this is a good idea? Or, you and your muslim brethren could just grow a backbone and not throw a hissy fit as soon as someone mocks your religion, culture and/or values, and I'll do the same for you.
They can shut down any of their services they like, completely arbitrarily, at any time. They are a company, not the US government.
Now, we can debate all day if its a 'moral' policy, or if its good for business, but the fact remains they can do anything they want with their services.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Except that it has happened for other major religions. Catholicism, for one: Religious War Ignites in France. "The Last Temptation of Christ" ignited people.
Why not? Make it a battle for ideas, and may the side with the best arguments win.
I believe it speaks for itself that you have to go back 24 years to find a single instance of (non-deadly) Christian violence. And to compare that with the rampant killings performed in Islams name due to blasphemy is in my opinion ridicolous.
Or to make it clear: Yes, people from religions other than Islam are also offended by perceived blasphemy. And yes, they will at a few rare occasions resort to violence. But the scale of the violence originating from Islam is in a totally different league. It is effectively silencing critics all over the globe.
I'm not getting into a pissing match over which sky-fairy produces the most violence. Simply pointing out that fundamentalist beliefs lead to violence. Did you actually read the article? Do you honestly believe you need to go back 24 years to find examples of violent Christian reactions to art, or as you phrase it, a wider net of "Christian violence"?
To be fair why not allow fundamentalist Muslims to release their Jihad videos to Youtube translated into english for American audiences? Freespeech right?
I for one would like to see into the mindset of the fundamentalist jihadists, turn the lights on. if they're cockroaches they'll scatter.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
The only reason Jesus was able to be resurrected is because he was purely God, and sinless. Had he been half human prior to death, he would have been neither sinless, nor purely God, therefore the resurrection could not have happened.
Drugs existed then, and one of those drugs actually simulated death in the user that lasted for just about three days before it wore off. Perhaps, when Mary gave Christ water that drug was 'slipped' to him. When he woke up and realized, "They want to kill me", he got the hell out of town. This is one plausible explanation for the ressurection. I am a former altar boy who believed in religion until I reached the age of reaaon.
Atheist: Oh dear God, that's effing offensive... ;;;rolls eyes and types in the address bar cnn.com;;;
If you owned the ground at "ground zero", you could do that.
It's called "free speech".
It would be insulting and offensive, but legal. Just like this video.
Do you remember when a cross (crucifix?) was placed in a bottle of urine in an art gallery? The Christians were rather upset, to say the least. The Pope got all bent out of shape. People protested the museum. Public funding for art was attacked, again. NOBODY FUCKING DIED. Get it?
If the Muslim world ever wants to be seen as something other than a bunch of animals, they need to learn to deal with stuff like this without killing people and rioting. It *is* free speech. Offensive free speech, actually.
Another is: "Let's throw in this element from Mithranism while we are cooking up this new religion of ours. It is popular back in Rome."
Maybe it's a trap?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Um, Norway, July 22 2011? 83 dead? That is ONE year ago. And certainly not "non-deadly". Not over blasphemy though, if that is an important filter for you.
The last major example in Europe was the Thirty Years war. It ended, IIRC, in 1648.
As far as I'm aware, it was not kept secret. There's books and stuff about it. Anyone who wishes to study it and learn from it can. Some, apparently, chose - and continue to choose - not to.
How politically correct garbage making comparisons across the best part of four centuries gets modded insightful I'll never know. "Does" and "did" are not the same thing.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Ludicrous.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
It has become almost traditional at every anniversary of 9/11 to mention all those warnings from American and foreign intelligence agencies, compulsively ignored by the Cheney-Bush administration.
While those are all well and true, it should never be forgotten that repeated warnings were also coming from a warrior-commander far away in Afghanistan, Ahmad Shah Massoud, known as the Lion of Panjshir for his fighting to repel the Soviet invasion.
Commander Massoud, of the Northern Alliance he had formed to fight against the Taliban, had repeatedly attempted to warn the Bush administration of an impending terrorist attack, and had spoken of such in a speech several months earlier he had given to the European Parliament.
Told of several journalists who wished to interview him, and ignoring the concerns of his aides, Commander Massoud made one last attempt to publicize his warning to America.
The two reporters turned out to be imposters, cowardly dogs of Al-Qaeda, who would self-detonate to murder the noble Massoud, who made the ultimate sacrifice in his final attempt to warn America!
One can only wonder what Ahmad Shah Massoud, the martyred commander might have elaborated about after the attacks on 9/11/01, and what his living testimony might have shed light upon?
Dead men tell no tales, but Americans should never forget this tale of yet another Muslim hero of 9/11, the Afghanistani warrior-leader who died trying to sound the alarm.
The Beloved Martyred Commander
Ahmad Shah Massoud
Sept. 2, 1953 --- Sept. 9, 2001
Hvil i frioi, Commander
If you're gonna go there, you might as well nitpick that "proscribed" typo as well.
Every religion has rules.
Call them what you like, but they tend to be strict as they are rules sent down from God Himself.
Those religious rules explain EVERYTHING in the Universe. Not the least of all, there is always a rule(s) about the nature of good and evil.
Describing the world in such black and white terms is pure absolutism.
Religion being based on a myth (usually a very detailed and organized one) and not on scientific theory, those religious rules are not based on real life but on a system of imaginary values built on the myth of that particular religion.
Some of those values MAY coincide with real life rules but they all lose their relevance the moment the magical thinking starts - i.e. when philosophy becomes religious dogma and ritual.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
Most likely, having read numerous papers and reports published in Saudi Arabia over the past 10 years which were aimed at the economic elite of that family-owned country (the Saud family), one might surmise that the Saudis are behind the financing of these widespread protests, and possibly even the murders of the ambassador and the State Dept. people in Libya.
The lack of spanning centuries was a flaw in the previous post. It was written on the assumption that the religions as they exist at this moment are representative throughout history. But the past shows this isn't true: Religions change.
"That is all subjective. Calling the President a name isn't a threat, but it could be perceived as a threat depending on the context and culture."
Both this statement and parent statement about threats are irrelevant until acted upon. The law isn't supposed to have any role until an illegal action otherwise we start talking about censorship and thought police.
Yes, blasphemy is an important filter for me in this discussion. As an atheist I believe that the best shield against oppresive tendencies in religions is the deconstruction of the religions. And Islam is the only major religion which is hindering this through organised violence at a larger scale.
And Anders Behring Breivik was a cultural Christian (according to himself) who committed a heinous crime. But for political and not religious reasons (as mentioned he was not very religious).
I believe everyone with two eyes can see which religion produces the most violence. That is a no-brainer.
But no, I believe that you can find recent isolated acts of Christian violence due to perceived blasphemy. But I am also sure that you cannot find it at the scale that we see Islamic violence due to perceived blasphemy. And also on the everyday level: People are regularly executed for blasphemy in some islamic states. I haven't heard of any executions performed by Buddhists for blasphemy. Why is this the case if all religions share the same propensity for violence against those who don't share their faith?
you know what i call christian fundamentalists? i call them the "American Taliban"
Google already has a huge amount of information on the people who viewed this video. Correlated with these people's search history and all the information they retain, they can sell this information for a ridiculous amount of money. Whether they restrict it or not, they can follow exactly how it propagated, who talked with who, who their friends are, etc. They win either way.
Why not? Make it a battle for ideas, and may the side with the best arguments win.
Okay lets do it. Just be prepared for the violence and have the police monitoring us all.
:(.... Yeah. I don't think you are getting what I am saying. I'm saying "hey, that onion cartoon is annoying, but it isn't really 100% accurate.". I provided a counter example. Done.
"That is all subjective. Calling the President a name isn't a threat, but it could be perceived as a threat depending on the context and culture."
Both this statement and parent statement about threats are irrelevant until acted upon. The law isn't supposed to have any role until an illegal action otherwise we start talking about censorship and thought police.
Correct. But if it's legal to incite terrorism then what? It's complicated. I support free speech but I don't support terrorism and if free speech is being used to promote terrorism you see the problem?
It's impossible to argue that someone should believe in something that most likely doesn't exist,
You can't "know" that it doesn't likely exist, because these claims are, by definition, beyond human knowledge. Science can neither prove nor disprove the existence (or non-existence) of God. Belief and non-belief are both judgments, not facts. They are conclusions one reaches upon examining the world, and there Science may help you. But Science ends at material things.
"We receive as friendly that which agrees with, we resist with dislike that which opposes us" - Faraday
You think they aren't now? The only reason they aren't reading your emails right now is that you aren't worth the time.
It's good to know I wasn't the only one who thought of them with that exact same phrase in mind.
I know all about freedom of speech and how this is one bad apple, nonetheless too many idiots are seeing this as another freedom of speech thing.
Smart people see it this way as well. Because it is a freedom of speech thing.
Let's all be insensitive about each others culture, I'm sure we will have a better society.
What's the point of claiming otherwise when we're not so sensitive? Why play pretend?
My view is that if Allah/God exists, he must prefer developed world societies, despite all their decadence and arrogance, over societies that enshrine the laws developed by observant Muslim societies. The former certainly do better than the latter. And I believe that is in large part due to things like freedom of speech.
Well from the bottom of my heart please walk off the nearest bridge. You expect us to put up with your shit, beheading people on national TV, acting like its 1399, burning our flag and then give a flying fuck because YOU'RE offended? Really? For offensive lets look at some quotes from your "great book" shall we?
Quran 4:89: They (infidels) desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah's way; but if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper.
Quran 8:12: Instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers;
Quran 2:191: kill the disbelievers wherever we find them
Quran 22:19-22: for them (the unbelievers) garments of fire shall be cut and there shall be poured over their heads boiling water whereby whatever is in their bowels and skin shall be dissolved and they will be punished with hooked iron rods.
Quran 8:12: Your Lord inspired the angels with the message: I will terrorize the unbelievers. Therefore smite them on their necks and every joint and incapacitate them. Strike off their heads and cut off each of their fingers and toes.
Quran 8:7: Allah wished to confirm the truth by His words: Wipe the infidels out to the last.
Quran 8:59: The infidels should not think that they can get away from us. Prepare against them whatever arms and weaponry you can muster so that you may terrorize them. They are your enemy and Allah's enemy.
Quran 8:60: Prepare against them whatever arms and cavalry you can muster that you may strike terror in the enemies of Allah, and others besides them not known to you.
Quran 9.29 Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.
Quran 47:4: Strike off the heads of the disbelieversâ and, after making a âoewide slaughter among them, carefully tie up the remaining captives.
Yeah nice book you have there...I put it along with Mao's "Little red book" and Mein Kampf in the "shit the world would be better off without" column. Is it true or is it not your "prophet" took a NINE YEAR OLD GIRL as a bride? Is not every. single. quote. I took from your book correct? does it not say you are allowed to decieve and cheat anyone who doesn't believe? And care to explain the word "Dhimmi" to our audience (hint its similar to cattle, what they think of you).
Many here may be PC and not have the balls but I call it as I see it and your "religion" is a totalitarian POLITICAL movement pretending to be a religion. It has more in common with cults like Heaven's gate than it does with Buddhists or any other mainstream religion. And before anybody wastes their damned breath Yes the Christians had similar shit...900 fucking years ago, but they GREW THE FUCK UP which is apparently more than the Muslims will ever do, instead they will follow a religion that tells them which hand to wipe their ass with and which positions to fuck their wives in...if that ain't a fucking cult I'm Sammy Davis Jr.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
"The way to deal with superstition is not to be polite to it, but to tackle it with all arms, and so rout it, cripple it, and make it forever infamous and ridiculous. Is it, perchance, cherished by persons who should know better? Then their folly should be brought out into the light of day, and exhibited there in all its hideousness until they flee from it, hiding their heads in shame.
True enough, even a superstitious man has certain inalienable rights. He has a right to harbor and indulge his imbecilities as long as he pleases, provided only he does not try to inflict them upon other men by force. He has a right to argue for them as eloquently as he can, in season and out of season. He has a right to teach them to his children. But certainly he has no right to be protected against the free criticism of those who do not hold them. He has no right to demand that they be treated as sacred. He has no right to preach them without challenge. Did Darrow, in the course of his dreadful bombardment of Bryan, drop a few shells, incidentally, into measurably cleaner camps? Then let the garrisons of those camps look to their defenses. They are free to shoot back. But they canâ(TM)t disarm their enemy."
â" H L Mencken, âoeAftermathâ (coverage of the Scopes Trial) The Baltimore Evening Sun, (September 14, 1925)
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
I'm not defending the site, but when you say, "If you can't criticize others because you might hurt their feelings..." this popped to mind. We live in interesting times.
I'm thinking about it, therefore I might be.
If you don't want to be offended, just don't watch the video. Is that too hard?
I was not using it to illustrate the motivation of the crowd.
I was using it to point out that taking the result of individual trolling aimed at deliberately provoking an expected and violent response, and then shifting the burden of that deliberate provocation to "crowds that choose" is hypocritical at best.
Or try it this way.
If one knows that the particular theater crowd will stampede out of the theater if someone shouts "Cookies!" (It's the national convention of cookiephobes.), what is the difference between shouting "Cookies!" and shouting "Fire!" in that crowd?
One does not get "It's OK" points for provoking someone if the provocation seems irrational to the provocateur or the third party.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
I know all about freedom of speech and how this is one bad apple, nonetheless too many idiots are seeing this as another freedom of speech thing. I don't stand for violence and loss of life, idiots in middle east are just that. So are idiots in america viewing this as a freedom of speech issue.
If you could convince people to keep their culture within their culture, you would deserve a Nobel prize. This would be a crowning achievement in our era.
-- Nate
You obviously didn't bother searching. Just one of many many many examples: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5tqi84fJak
quote:
"Brothers in faith, the Al-Aqsa Mosque remains under oppressive occupation. The Jews continue to defile it with their filth. The only way to liberate it is through Jihad for the sake of Allah."
So.. yeah.
And personally I really appreciate things like that being available to view or read online even though I'm firmly against what they say. It's fascinating, and it's important to learn about your enemies is it not?
How exactly do you make this play together with a worldwide Internet? You can shout pretty much anything on it, knowing that it'll reach people all across the globe, and you are pretty much guaranteed to get someone somewhere offended. So now what, we should crack down on all offensive speech on the grounds that someone got mad and did something nasty?
Drugs existed then, and one of those drugs actually simulated death in the user that lasted for just about three days before it wore off. Perhaps, when Mary gave Christ water that drug was 'slipped' to him. When he woke up and realized, "They want to kill me", he got the hell out of town. This is one plausible explanation for the ressurection.
So Jesus lay in a cold tomb with crucifixion wounds, a hole in his side from the centurion's spear, suffering from scourge wounds, with no food, water, nor medical care, for 3 days? Then got up, moved a several hundred pound rock, and went on a journey?
Yea, that makes perfect sense.
You can't "know" that it doesn't likely exist, because these claims are, by definition, beyond human knowledge
Yes, I can. I can know that it doesn't likely exist simply because nobody has ever seen it, interacted with it or demonstrated the effects of its existence. Something that does nothing, is nothing, impacts nothing and has been seen by nobody has e very low likelihood of existing. The fact that some ignorant goat herders claim it does exist, and people who 2000 years later still believe them claim that it is beyond human knowledge doesn't increase its likelihood of existing. Quite the contrary.
Science can neither prove nor disprove the existence (or non-existence) of God
You are half right and half wrong. Science can easily prove the existence of God. He can just pop 'round a science lab some time, have the scientists interview him, shoot some pictures, take some measurements, and voila, his existence is proven. You are right they can not prove the non-existence though. This is a crucial point. The non-existence of anything can not be proven. So...
There is exactly an infinite, plus minus 5, things that we can not prove the non-existence of. I can not prove that there are not little green elves in the forest that go invisible when glanced at or in the presence of a camera. I can't prove they do not exist. I can not prove the non-existence of invisible pink unicorns. I can not prove that there is not a tea cup with little pink hearts in approximately the same orbit around the sun as Pluto has, plus minus an arbitrary number.
Now, this is the cool thing about science, since there is exactly a infinite (plus minus five) things science can not prove the non-existence of, the chance of any one of them actually existing is exactly like 0%, plus minus nothing at all.
Believing in things just because science can not prove they don't exist is 100% moronic, plus minis zero.
Belief and non-belief are both judgments
Nope, they are not. Belief is judgement, non-belief is lack of action or judgement. Atheism is an act or a personal judgement in the same way that "not collecting stamps" is a hobby.
FTA: "...but we forget that much of that speech is now hosted by third-parties who are under no obligation to protect it." Free speech does not imply that others are required to help propagate your speech. It simply means that government and individuals are not allowed to hinder willing listeners from hearing and cinsuming your ideas. Not only is youtube is under no obligation to promote any or all speech, their unwillingness to support certain forms of speech does not constitute an attack on freedom of speech in general. I am quite glad that I am not required to host all kinds of videos (e.g. Islamic fundamentalist videos) to show my support for freedom of speech, unhypocritically. Youtube is offering a free service of a semi-open forum for the general public, which you are free to use if you find their TOS agreeable or not use if you don't. No coercion of any sort takes place, and nearly all forms of speech are acceptable to them. ( a small minority of speech is prohibited) Even with their restrictions, I find their service to be a great boon to the cause of freedom of speech. Freedom of speech only implies that neither youtube, nor the government, nor Islamic radicals, etc can legally stop you from hosting your videos yourself, or having a willing sponsor of your speech host your videos. I don't think it is fair nor wise to rely on google as the protector of freedom of speech. We should treat them only as an honored participant and facilitator in the free market place of ideas.
Violence between grown men is basically a socially acceptable way for them to "do it" with each other. Straight guys don't have sex with each other, they fight each other. But it's really the same kind of interaction. "You, me, let's do this."
That is only true if you equate having sex with rape. Most of us in the civilized world make a clear distinction between the two.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
I am saying they would not be offended had they been grown-ups rather than little children with even littler egos.
Even grown-ups can be offended, but most grown-ups shrug it off, write a letter to the editor of their favorite newspaper or posts an article on their blog. The ability to control your anger over petty offenses are actually an important part of adulthood at least in my part of the world. Here, when people whine about being offended by something, they are told to grow up and grow a thicker skin. On the other hand, when Muslims are offended and start rioting, people start making excuse after excuse about how that is how they are and that we must stop offending them. Nobody says anything similar about e.g. religious satire directed at Christians. Piss Christ? Refreshingly provocative. The prophet M. as a roundabout dog? That's suddenly an unconscionable offense by a failed racist artist.
I'm an atheist, but I'm sick and tired of this difference in how the media treat different religions. I'm all for satirizing all of them, but the (mostly left-wing) journalists think that we should pussyfoot around Islam while attacking Christianity with the full force of the toolbox of satire. That's starkly hypocritical, in my opinion.
Have you ever tried having a reasoned conversation with a religious person? At some point you will hit the fact that they have to do what they're doing because their "god" commands it. You can't reason against that mindset on such a high level. The only way to remove such brainwashing, is more brainwashing.
which is totally what she said
...that when we were raping, looting, pillaging, etc - the Muslim world was the center of tolerance, science, learning, etc. When they were overrun a few times by barbarians from the east... somehow all the high parts of their society were lost for good (so far.) Damned shame.
You can't see the forest through the trees can you....
in other words, don't nitpick over the part that isnt even his point.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Most christian faiths still believe the same as Catholicism teaches, and that teaching is that Jesus is "both the Son of Man and the Son of God". one of those faith paradoxes (and remember, paradox doesn't mean untree, just "seemingly contradictory"). the lay translation being "100% human and 100% divine. completely both at the same time". the "son of Man" part simply isnt stressed, though its seen in sections where he gets angry, feels doubt, etc. its also important to remember, as a Christian, because an divine being "dying" for a cause has little meaning, but a human dying for that same cause has tremendous meaning.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
The State of Vatican City (or, less formally, "Vatican City") is a government/state. The Vatican -- more formally the Holy See -- is the supreme religious of the Catholic Church. They are distinct authorities (even though they exist in same person, much as is the case with, say, the Canadian and Australian monarchies.)
But since the goalpost has inexplicably now moved from "Christians" to church groups in the USA, I would point out that a number of those have condemned the film as well, including the Coptic Orthodox Diocese of Los Angeles (notable because the believed creator of the film was a Coptic Christian from Southern California.)
I am rather tempted to suggest a novel solution here which relies upon Darwinian natural selection.
Firstly, select an area of completely worthless land somewhere that the majority of Arabs can get to fairly easily. Afganistan would be a good choice, somewhere where there are no easily-exploited minerals and which is too far from a major river to be worth irrigating and living on.
Secondly, build a spider-web of basic roads leading out from the chosen area.
Thirdly, set up a very large military base there, complete with runway for resupply/maintainence. Put around this a good, strong fence, several ditch and bank defences and a minefield. Inside this place an over-abundance of automated machineguns, set to fire on anything moving into the base. Set up all equipment so it can be left unattended for long periods, and so that maintainence can be performed as safely as possible otherwise; under normal operating conditions this base will be unmanned.
Finally, signpost the base lavishly, on the lines of "This way to extremely well fortified Infidel base of certain death".
At this point, you will have given all the loons who want to martyr themselves fighting the infidel the perfect place where they can go do it without inconveniencing normal folks, although flying a large variety of flags over the base might also be a good idea, just in case the martyr-loons are fussy about which particular nationality of base they want to kill themselves on (flying a few completely fictional flags is also a good idea).
Why? No seriously, why would anybody get more worked up over this garbage than Christians got worked up over the crucifix in a bottle of urine?
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
And 100% man, making a being who is 200%- and part of a godhead that adds up to a being that is 500%.
Nobody said that Christian theology could be judged by math.
And you missed the original brilliant point.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Yep. Catholicism. Somewhat rare, with 1.1 billion followers, more than 1/6th the population of the Planet Earth.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
And then failed to use it, though your "reasoning" in this post is quite correct.
By failed to use it, I mean you allowed reason to destroy faith instead of using reason to *create* faith.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Catholicism. Universal Good is the meaning of the word. Why get rid of something good merely because it came from a different tradition?
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
More like 2/5ths (Jesus the Man, Jesus the God, God the Father, God the Holy Spirit, and of course, don't forget the Mother of God, though strictly speaking, St. Mary is only honored, not deified).
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Even grown-ups can be offended
They can elect to be offended, but it is immature.
I'm an atheist, but I'm sick and tired of this difference in how the media treat different religions
Me too, which is why I think someone should make one such video a week until they grow up and stop acting like mentally handicapped children who have OD'ed on some bad testosterone.
Most democratic countries don't have free speech.
Play Command HQ online
That's an oxymoron. A country without free speech can not, per definition, be a democracy.
Why not? Pretty much every country in Western Europe allows restrictions on speech even political and religious speech. Especially political and religious speech. Yet some of them are arguable more democratic than the US.
Play Command HQ online
Does a newspaper _HAVE_ to print stuff? Seems to me if a newspaper cannot be forced to print something, then a web site cannot either.
My next door neighbour's a Catholic. We've talked religion before, and he's never mentioned anything like this.
I'll ask him next time I talk to him, and see what he says.
"City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
That is only true if you equate having sex with rape. Most of us in the civilized world make a clear distinction between the two.
There are many uncivilized people in the "civilized" world. If you've ever seen two guys trying to escalate each other into a brawl, it's pretty obvious that both are willing participants in what is occurring. It's violent, and violence is what they are looking for.
Yet some of them are arguable more democratic than the US.
There is a problem with your argument. If there is a restriction on political speech, there is no democracy. Look at Germany for example. Germany has (almost understandably) quite strong limits on speech that one would call fascist or neo-nazi in its nature. This means that it is not possible for a fascist or a neo-nazi to run for election. They are not allowed to utter the political message they are running on. Once you have banned someone from running in an election due to their political views, you no longer have a democracy. Of any kind. You have a totalitarian, non-democratic society. Like the USSR where there was also elections, but only approved messages were allowed.
You only have free speech when even those with revolting opinions are allowed to express them. Free speech is a requirement for democracy, without it you can't have a democracy. Germany is therefore not a democracy, it only claims to be. So did the USSR.
This is not unique for Germany. I live in Norway, which has elections every year, but where political correctness have made all political parties the same. We recently had a finance minister from the extreme left, she was praised by the OECD for her policies during the 2008 fiscal situation. OECD and that finance minister are at the opposite ends of the political spectrum. The finance minister did what she was told by the bureaucracy was required in that situation, not what she had run on as a politician. In fact, at no time did she ever try to institute policies that were in line with her political standpoint, her policies were all determined by the bureaucracy. That is not democracy, if one is to put a nice spin on it, it is perhaps a meritocracy, assuming the bureaucracy could be said to warrant the label "merits".
When I was young, dumb and on the left in politics, one of the most debated meta-aspects of politics was the danger of democracy falling to the bureaucracy. We knew it was a real possibility, but didn't realize it had already happened in most of Europe way back in the 1950s, particularly in Scandinavia, Germany etc. The EU strengthens the power of the bureaucracy at the expense of the democracy. Today I am a libertarian who realizes that democracy needs defending again, and that the EU is the most serious threat to European democracy since 1918.
You're likely to get an answer more of "100% God and 100% man", but I can easily see how the original poster mistook that for 50-50.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
How exactly do you make this play together with a worldwide Internet? You can shout pretty much anything on it, knowing that it'll reach people all across the globe, and you are pretty much guaranteed to get someone somewhere offended. So now what, we should crack down on all offensive speech on the grounds that someone got mad and did something nasty?
That is a very good question.
And I'm sad to say that I don't really have an answer, though these guys seem to be on the right track.
I don't think that "cracking down" by government or some other "high authority" would help.
Two things MIGHT though.
Education of public that "it's not nice to do some things - online or off" (Yeah, I know.) and ridicule of those who practice such trolling, presenting them for what they really are.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
I'd like to see marines out defending the rights of Westboro baptist church to protest the funeral's of dead soldiers. I guess you would too.
If you think someone isn't free to have a different definition of "freedom" you may be a tyrant.
Actually, service members are *more* likely, not less, to do so. (Based on anecdotal evidence).
-- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
With the V-chip parents and schools can censor what many see.
Extending the dimensions of this concept to include other issues is obvious and logical.
Google should do this for all their content, it is a tag no different than any attribute.
Defaults can be regional.
Something like.
Penis images, yes/no
Hair, no hair, flaccid not flaccid
Breasts, Yes/no
Baby attached
Cold, not cold
Prophet images, Yes/no;
Joseph Smith
Jesus, Mary, Joseph
Mohamed
Obama
Quick, before it gets a patent troll latched on to one of the above.
Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't. Mark Twain.