Cartoons and common sense

quote:

---

many would say that by demanding that the west conform to your religious dictates, i.e.
banning portrayal of the prophet IS imposing one culture's view on another country.

---

I think I speak for most Muslims in foreign lands on this issue.
It is not a demand or law or conform issue. It is a matter of people in responsible positions personally exercising kindness and respect for others. It is the choice by newspapers whether to knowingly inflame hostility of Muslims. I can understand ignorance of the issue on a first post, but this was a deliberate act repeated by other European papers, and probably American ones soon.

quote:

---

...it was a terrible situation, and that is why it cannot be allowed to happen again.

---

Eight or more countries have the nuclear bomb, have not used it against another country and there is peace.
The Iranian leader is building support with his own people, using free speech. I do not agree with his hostile rhetoric, but that is his right, is it not? That does not mean he would use a nuclear weapon and thus destroy his country in retalliation. He just wants to parade his power.Thank you for polite rational discussion.

Your own culture has mocked Mohammed for centuries. Mohammed himself even pardoned a poet who had satirized him for decades. What was the prior indication that this would "inflame" Muslims? Inflame extremeists, sure, but who cares about them? They look for excuses to be inflamed.

I understand your point, but no other countries have made such violent threats to other nations (as far as I know)For what it's worth, I personally would like to see complete nuclear disarmament by ALL nations, thus, adding another nation to the list of those in possesion of nuclear weapons is a backward step in this regard If it would never be used because of this fear of retalliation, why have it in the first place? what kind of world would this be if everyone had nuclear weapons "just in case" or to "parade power"?
I don't want to live in a world where there is the contant imminent threat of all out nuclear destruction.
All it takes is one misplaced diplomatic word or one misunderstood opinion and BOOM!... it's all over.In the same way I would not walk into a bar where everyone has a side arm... in my view it's only amatter of time before a shot is fired, then everyone returns fire.I don't want to live in fear.

I was discussing the demonstrations and riots. And I like how you say "the moslems" were overreacting from the get go. Notice that "the whities" overreacted to a potential issue regarding taboo imagery for muslims by promoting and the publishing patently offensive imagery to that community, which is shown by later points to be contrary to their practice for other religions, and is against Danish law.The idea that anyone was surprised that making a cartoon mocking a community using imagery they find highly offensive, would elicit a death threat from extreme members of that community seems more than a bit naive.What they got was on the whole a very reserved and law abiding approach to their overt insult. The majority of "the moslems" kept it calm. The danish PM snubbed diplomats trying to discuss the issue with him, and the legal case was dropped by the prosecutor for no explainable (or consistent) reason.The growth in size and violence of the demonstrations seems tied to danish leadership clearly missing their marks, followed by muslim extremists exploiting their gaffes and resulting problems. I'm not saying there was no failure from the Islamic leaders. Indeed I would say there may have been more intentional wrongdoing on the part of some Islamic leaders. The point is that nonIslamic leaders started the ball rolling in the wrong direction.It is patently clear that muslims did seek legal means to resolve the issue (ones suggested here in fact) and were dismissed and snubbed. And many of the demonstrations have been peaceful, rather than all being heated and violent.There seems to be ties between the ones which turned violent and extremist organizations. Go figure.

---

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

I started by saying why I didn't need to answer, then went ahead and did it anyway... again.If I have not understood the question, perhaps you should ask it again.I will note that you have not answered my question regarding your extrapolation, especially in light of the nature of the protests.

---

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

quote:

---

I don't know where this comes from nor do I feel why I have to explain myself, but here goes.

---

You don't have to explain yourself. However, what you have written is pretty much nonsense, and you might want to clarify that. On the other hand, since your response is pretty much nonsense, maybe it would have been better if you hadn't. To wit:-

quote:

---

A roomate in college...hipped me to the jive of Wahhabism folks.

---

Interesting. And so the the conclusion you draw from your conversations with your former room mate is that all Muslims are dangerous terrorists? Or all Arabs? Or just brown-skinned people who are devout? Is that really what you room mate was telling you? Odd. I wonder if he was part of the elite of his country (he was studying in this country, after all) and if that had something to do with how he colored the discussions with you. Did he mention that what support the Wahabbis have in Saudi Arabia is mainly a means of expressing fustration and anger at the corruption and nepotism among the Saudi rulers?I actually lived in Tanzania for three years. And with the local people, too, not in a walled compound. Half the people around me were Christian, the other half were Muslim. To be honest, except for fasting during Ramadan and going to church on Sunday, I never noticed much difference between the two. The Muslims were pretty peaceful and pleasant. Should I conclude that all Muslims are peaceful and pleasant? Or just the African ones?I also knew a shop keeper of Indian descent who was Muslim. He told me that it was un-Islamic to force one's beliefs on other people. May I conclude that all Muslims are uninterested in forcing their beliefs on other people? After all, that is something I learned from a Muslim from a foreign land as well. How are my contacts any less reliable than yours?So, maybe you might want to flesh out your arguement about how the Wahabbis pose a grave and imminent danger to the West, because, frankly, I don't see it.-

quote:

---

If you think I am in some way exaggerating about their hatred for us... then get on a plane. Go on... get on a plane and travel to Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia... find a wahhabism rally... wear a t-shirt that says "Christian American," on the front and "Up with Bush," on the back... and see how long you survive.

---

Gee. Let's see -- there is one group that is undeniably extreme in its views...so we must fear the entire rabble of the Middle East? And your demonstration of how extreme they are is their potential reaction to a T-shirt supporting someone who has basically declared war on them?

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

If I felt there was any possibility that you would respond to a query about a hypothetical situation with a requirement that a non-hypothetical situation be specified, I might.As it is you've made it clear you have no plans to do anything but evade the question. Fair enough. You ask a lot of questions, most rhetorical, that often have nothing to do with my argument.If you feel there's a specific question you'd like me to address, in the future I would suggest that you not bury it in the middle of one of your enormous missives.

quote:

---

Interesting. And so the the conclusion you draw from your conversations with your former room mate is that all Muslims are dangerous terrorists? Or all Arabs? Or just brown-skinned people who are devout? Is that really what you room mate was telling you?

---

Oh no. Not at all.

quote:

---

I wonder if he was part of the elite of his country (he was studying in this country, after all) and if that had something to do with how he colored the discussions with you.

---

I don't think so. I do remember him saying that his father was an engineer of some kind. The college in question was Sam Houston State... not exactly a top University.

quote:

---

Did he mention that what support the Wahabbis have in Saudi Arabia is mainly a means of expressing fustration and anger at the corruption and nepotism among the Saudi rulers?

---

I told him how one night, at a job I had, that the crowned prince and princess of saudi Arabia had rented out our entire facility for an evening. I was impressed, but he kind of laughed and said that the royal family was pretty much a joke.

quote:

---

So, maybe you might want to flesh out your arguement

---

Ya... maybe I was a little unclear. I was responding to Crashfrog, when he said that a crowd could be judged by the signs they carry. In this thread there are many photos of people with extremist views being depicted.I believe the point I was trying to make was that he was at least correct in this respect. I am well aware of peaceful demonstrations about the cartoons... which is why I chose to title my post "Pick your rally carefully." I appologize if my post was unclear.-Babelfish

So, that's reasonable to you? That a large crows would organize and come together and take joint action because they have nothing at all in common?Let's put that to the test. Here's such a crowd:What's the most reasonable response to this situation?1) Huh, that's funny. Here's a crowd of people that have absolutely nothing in common. There's absolutely no reason that they should all be here at once - it's just coincidence - and we couldn't possibly assume that any two of them will agree, even slightly, on any concievable topic.2) Here's a crowd of people with absolutely nothing in common, and also a crowd of people with signs. We can conclude, I guess, that the people with signs each support the message on their sign, presumably, but we shouldn't conclude that they have anything in common with the other people with signs. And nobody without a sign should be presumed to have any position on anything.3) Here's a protest about several issues. By definition, therefore, we can presume that a person voluntarily at this protest shares the positions of the crowd to one degree or another.Like I said, you tell me which is more reasonable. Make sure you show your work. Do you think you could cool the rhetoric a bit? I'll remind you of the forum guidelines:

quote:

---

Always treat other members with respect. Argue the position, not the person. Avoid abusive, harassing and invasive behavior. Avoid needling, hectoring and goading tactics.

​

Usually, in a well-conducted debate, speakers are either emotionally uncommitted or can preserve sufficient detachment to maintain a coolly academic approach.

​

-- Encylopedia Brittanica, on debate

---

quote:

---

I appologize if my post was unclear.

---

It's possible that I misread your post, perhaps reading into it something you didn't mean to say.

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

Oh come on... where did I mention anything about haveing 'nothing at all in common'??
Please don't misquote me... read what I have written and argue those points.with respect to your pictures:
If you are likely to make a judgement on a crowd of thousands of people based on one small photograph well... there's no room for rational argument there. Actually your point 3 kind of hits the mark "to one degree or another" I see you've softened this from a much more polar "nothing at all in common"
That is exactly what i have been trying to get across. people at a protest will have a commonly held belief (usually the subject of a protest) this DOES NOT, however, infer that they agree on every aspect of every area of their political/enviromental/philosophical beliefs.If I am at a protest march about saving the whales... and someone beside me is holding a sign or wearing a t-shirt espousing vegetarianism does this mean that I also hold this person's views on vegetarianism? No. can you not see this?
Someone else supports blowing up the japanese embassy... does this mean that I want to blow up the japanese embassy?... No. Can you not see this?How about concluding that they have a common belief in terms of the subject of the protest but perhaps have differeing opinions on how to achieve their aims? why is this so hard for you to grasp?One reasonable response would be:
"oh look there's a crowd of people at a protest, I wonder what they're protesting about. Maybe I'll look into it further and not make a rash assumption about everyone there, based upon who's standing closest to the camera" ..indeed!one more time... can you please answer these two questions?

I said if I missed it ask again. Clearly I though I answered it on more than one occassion. If you don't want to repeat it fine, but quit posing for your ego, I'm the one trying to communicate with you and I am being honest about it. What evidence do you have which allows extrapolation from these demonstrations, and particularly the violent demonstrations, to what Islamic people in the MidEast are like and generally believe? If you don't want to answer, just don't.

---

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

Agreed. The question you keep avoiding is, how do we, outside the rally, determine what that commonly-held belief is?Just stop the bloviating and answer the question. It's not a difficult one but it's at the very heart of the issue.

Oh, none at all. I don't extrapolate what it's like in the Middle East from the actions of these protestors, except for the protestors who are from and located in the Middle east.I extrapolate the views of Muslims in the middle east from the stated views of Muslims in the middle east. Seems pretty simple, to me.

perhaps by examining the facts of who called the rally and find out for what purpose they called it.it that a good enough answer?Your answer seems to be: "look at some of the signs people are holding up, and assume they are the views of everybody"PLEASE PLEASE answer me: can you not accept that a peaceful, well intentioned protest can be hijacked by a minority of militant hardliners?NOW PERHAPS YOU COULD DO ME THE COURTESY OF ANSWERING MY QUESTIONS??