You say I am not understanding. It is true that I do not understand how you can believe what you do. You do not understand how I believe what I do. That is not the same as not understanding.
There are many people who find graphic photographs and descriptions of the human body offensive. As a doctor, I can be aware of this, and yet make medical textbooks to spread knowledge and discuss facts without intending to offend. I would say that those who posted to Wiki are aware that the images can and will offend - but that is not the same as an intent to offend, which is childish. I'd say they believe that the things they have posted are of historical value and contribute to the spread of knowledge, which they see as a noble thing. That you are deeply offended and profoundly disagree does not mean that the authors intended to offend, or that their actions are explained away through lack of understanding on their part. You lack understanding of their viewpoint as surely as they do yours.
Actually, Wiki *does* allow these things where relevant. I would not be surprised to see a statement like "NIGGER was, historically, a very offensive racial slur" used in an article on black history, any more than a historical depiction of muhammed in an article about him. It has factual relevancy to an article.
And slurs are used deliberately with the intent to offend. Pretty key differences.
Yours is a thoughtful reply, but I must respectfully point out further disagreements. I used headlines about Christian groups merely as an illustration, but using Animial Rights groups, gun control advocates/opponents, etc. would have made the point just as well or better. I think it's pretty reasonable to say that readers of \. are unlikely to automatically jump to the conclusion that the posting is about all Muslims, all muslim groups, or the the biggest and most authoritative groups.
No question, every society has kooks and nuts that should not be taken as representative. But here, frequency matters. Tim McVeigh was a nut, although for sure there are others here who think like him. But the difference here is that, in action, McViegh is the exception to the rule. Not in the sense of kooks - humanity gets to divide these pretty evenly - but in the sense of action. Major bombings by individual US citizens deliberately targeting civilians the last 30 years? Unusual enough that I can recall them for the most part from memory - the Unabomer, the Weathermen, McVeigh. Major attacks by Muslims targeting civilians? Common enough to have become unremarkable. Pretty easily a 100 to 1 ratio. Without getting into a debate about what constitutes terrorists or who is a muslim, the tragic fact that the statement "Not all muslims are terrorists, but nearly all terrorists are muslims" can be intelligently defended can't be simply swept under the carpet.
I read the links you sent but feel they serve to re-enforce many concerns. To me, and many westerners, distasteful beliefs or links of the Danish editor of the paper does not obscure our belief of freedom of the press. Intellectual freedom is not about defending publications we agree with. It's the opposite.
Maybe Van Gogh's murder was a kook. And past grievances and politics are involved, for sure. But Khomeini is the leader of a powerful government, and a senior Ayatollah. That the Sunni world might have disagreed with the Shia authority comes as little surprise - and very, very small comfort for Rushdie. Of course politics were involved in the cartoon matter. But the foreign minister of Egypt, heads of state of governments, etc. couldn't have fanned the flames if the audience was unreceptive. That there is significant support for opposing publications in western newspapers of any kind is pretty disconcerting.
The middle east was the cradle of civilization... contributing written language, codified law, algebra,... so many key discoveries for humanity. It's people have a long and rich history, proven ability, and tremendous future potential. But these issues are real and can't be explained away by media distortion or ignorance.
No one is suggesting that the Muslim world is without divergent opinions. Or that the groups involved are the largest and most representative of the faith. But this does not make the title misleading. When headlines read "Christian groups oppose stem cell research," no one assumes it means all Christians, all Christian groups, or the largest ones.
Further, 80,000 is not an insignificant number of people in general. And the background context is that the very similar issues - say, images in newspaper cartoons - led to mass protests, boycotts of entire countries, and demands by multiple middle eastern governments for retractions and apologies. Add in Salmon Rushdie's death fatwah for writing about Muhammed, or Theo Van Gogh's murder, and it's not a stretch for reasonable people to take this seriously. Actions like that make how legitimate an authority a group is seem pretty academic at best.
... by severing all their access lines. Wait... what's that? (whisper in the background)... sorry, someone has apparently already followed that suggestion. Well then, if that doesn't work, perhaps they can start logging in from China.
Slashdot Mirror
You say I am not understanding. It is true that I do not understand how you can believe what you do. You do not understand how I believe what I do. That is not the same as not understanding. There are many people who find graphic photographs and descriptions of the human body offensive. As a doctor, I can be aware of this, and yet make medical textbooks to spread knowledge and discuss facts without intending to offend. I would say that those who posted to Wiki are aware that the images can and will offend - but that is not the same as an intent to offend, which is childish. I'd say they believe that the things they have posted are of historical value and contribute to the spread of knowledge, which they see as a noble thing. That you are deeply offended and profoundly disagree does not mean that the authors intended to offend, or that their actions are explained away through lack of understanding on their part. You lack understanding of their viewpoint as surely as they do yours.
Actually, Wiki *does* allow these things where relevant. I would not be surprised to see a statement like "NIGGER was, historically, a very offensive racial slur" used in an article on black history, any more than a historical depiction of muhammed in an article about him. It has factual relevancy to an article. And slurs are used deliberately with the intent to offend. Pretty key differences.
Yours is a thoughtful reply, but I must respectfully point out further disagreements. I used headlines about Christian groups merely as an illustration, but using Animial Rights groups, gun control advocates/opponents, etc. would have made the point just as well or better. I think it's pretty reasonable to say that readers of \. are unlikely to automatically jump to the conclusion that the posting is about all Muslims, all muslim groups, or the the biggest and most authoritative groups. No question, every society has kooks and nuts that should not be taken as representative. But here, frequency matters. Tim McVeigh was a nut, although for sure there are others here who think like him. But the difference here is that, in action, McViegh is the exception to the rule. Not in the sense of kooks - humanity gets to divide these pretty evenly - but in the sense of action. Major bombings by individual US citizens deliberately targeting civilians the last 30 years? Unusual enough that I can recall them for the most part from memory - the Unabomer, the Weathermen, McVeigh. Major attacks by Muslims targeting civilians? Common enough to have become unremarkable. Pretty easily a 100 to 1 ratio. Without getting into a debate about what constitutes terrorists or who is a muslim, the tragic fact that the statement "Not all muslims are terrorists, but nearly all terrorists are muslims" can be intelligently defended can't be simply swept under the carpet. I read the links you sent but feel they serve to re-enforce many concerns. To me, and many westerners, distasteful beliefs or links of the Danish editor of the paper does not obscure our belief of freedom of the press. Intellectual freedom is not about defending publications we agree with. It's the opposite. Maybe Van Gogh's murder was a kook. And past grievances and politics are involved, for sure. But Khomeini is the leader of a powerful government, and a senior Ayatollah. That the Sunni world might have disagreed with the Shia authority comes as little surprise - and very, very small comfort for Rushdie. Of course politics were involved in the cartoon matter. But the foreign minister of Egypt, heads of state of governments, etc. couldn't have fanned the flames if the audience was unreceptive. That there is significant support for opposing publications in western newspapers of any kind is pretty disconcerting. The middle east was the cradle of civilization... contributing written language, codified law, algebra, ... so many key discoveries for humanity. It's people have a long and rich history, proven ability, and tremendous future potential. But these issues are real and can't be explained away by media distortion or ignorance.
No one is suggesting that the Muslim world is without divergent opinions. Or that the groups involved are the largest and most representative of the faith. But this does not make the title misleading. When headlines read "Christian groups oppose stem cell research," no one assumes it means all Christians, all Christian groups, or the largest ones. Further, 80,000 is not an insignificant number of people in general. And the background context is that the very similar issues - say, images in newspaper cartoons - led to mass protests, boycotts of entire countries, and demands by multiple middle eastern governments for retractions and apologies. Add in Salmon Rushdie's death fatwah for writing about Muhammed, or Theo Van Gogh's murder, and it's not a stretch for reasonable people to take this seriously. Actions like that make how legitimate an authority a group is seem pretty academic at best.
yeah,ah, for you, my friend, uh, a special deal. This really puts a dent in our business plan.
... by severing all their access lines. Wait... what's that? (whisper in the background)... sorry, someone has apparently already followed that suggestion. Well then, if that doesn't work, perhaps they can start logging in from China.