[Wullu]

$1:

BTW, you felt that parrish not only should not have said it (thereby restricting her free speech) but likely feel that mps should not be allowed to voice their opinion like that even if they believe it because they represent Canada and such things aren't politically correct.

Just because our reactions are different then the muslims doesn't mean that we don't react in a similiar manner when something we cherish is mocked or insulted by someone else.

Please tell me where I felt that Parrish should not have said something? Do I agree with those things she is most famous for saying and doing? Nope. She still has the right to say em though. Last I checked MPs were still citizens of this country and can say whatever pops into their mind. I still have the right to question what they say. That's the way to ol system works.

Now to the second para here. When exactly did we threaten death or burn down an embassy. When I disagree with someone I tell them that and tell them why I disagree. I don't threaten their family with bodily harm.

I have small but well defined set of ethics I do my damdest to live by.

Do unto others as you would have done unto you ( I may be an atheist but I know a good idea when I see it )

I will defend to my dying breath your right to say something that I totally disagree with.

There are others but not really germain to what we are talking about here.

Over to you.

[Tricks]

DerbyX DerbyX:

If I insulted your wife to your face does that give you the right to hit me?

If I expressed an opinion that I think you should be killed and commeted I will do it at a later date does that give the law the right to jail me?

If I belittled your child and called him useless in front of you does that give you the right to hit me?

Yes, No, Yes Could be an empty threat

[ShepherdsDog]

Ah, but if I struck you I could be charged by the police, no matter how heinous your statements. As to you uttering threats, you'd be charged and possibly incarcerated.

[Jaime_Souviens]

DerbyX DerbyX:

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

if I say something about you in my house that you would find offensive, does that give you the right to tell me what I can or can not say in my house? Does it give you the right to burn down my properties??

reactions and consequences are varied

If I insulted your wife to your face does that give you the right to hit me?

If I expressed an opinion that I think you should be killed and commeted I will do it at a later date does that give the law the right to jail me?

If I belittled your child and called him useless in front of you does that give you the right to hit me?

Quite frankly I would vote yes in all 3 cases and I think you would as well. It would be an expected reaction given the circumstance.

At work I know certain things really bother some people while those same things don't bother others at all. Consequently I am mindful about which things bother which people because it makes sense and makes for a good workplace.

Being mindful that muslims are very touchy about their religion isn't kissing ass or bowing down to them and sometimes prudence is in order. That doesn't mean they can tell us what we can and cannot print/do though.

I'm sorry, I forgot to factor two millennia of Western Imperialism into the moral equation, so, of course, they can burn any buildings they want.

Since the West is MORALLY CULPABLE for the existence of modern civilization as it now stands, that means that any people elsewhere in the world are wholly justified in committing any acts of violence and terror they want.

I forgot that that's how that works.

You jackass.

[Thematic-Device]

IceOwl IceOwl:

sukhoi sukhoi:

IYou wouldnt think there was a good or bad.

Good and bad are also relative, since the inclusion of morals defines them.

Then why should Norway simply buy a few trident missiles from the states and nuke syria? And then go on to nuke iran due to the whole mutual protection agreement they have?

IceOwl IceOwl:

It doesn't seem particularly difficult to just not write cartoons that upset people who are likely to get violent when you piss them off. It's the same reason it's generally not a very intelligent idea to go about stirring up hornet's nests on purpose.

If a bunch of hornets make their home in your kitchen, do you simply stop going to the kitchen?

But more to the point, isn't it incredibly easy to simply not attack embassies? I mean hell burning down someone's embassy is enough justification for them to invade your country and occupy it, under practically any new set of laws they wish.

IceOwl IceOwl:

kerfuffled kerfuffled:

Its always been my experience that people like this are unrelenting and will force confrontation sooner or later. Why should others be afraid of pissing them off when they go from zero to psycho over everything.

This wasn't "everything", or even "anything", it was something very specific, and these Danish cartoonists can't be so stupid as to think that nothing would come of it. It's like putting a "kick me" sign on your back and then wondering why you have so many bruises at the end of the day.

Wouldn't it be rather obvious that burning down an embassy would piss off any nation, as it is an act of war, so wouldn't a total retaliatory strike from Norway be perfectly reasonable following your logic?

$1:

$1:

Frankly I couldn't give a fuck for their stupid feelings. When I see compassion from them I might have some for them.

Perhaps when we show them that we are interested in giving them compassion, we will receive some in return.

Lets see... The US stood up for Egypt during the Suez Canal Incident, the US gave massive assistance after the Tsunami, after the Earthquake, that really helped didn't...

I think a more adequate response to someone, anyone, burning down your embassy is an immediate airlift of "compassion" Og nivellerer stedet (and level the place)



The fact that they aren't, is enough compassion as it is.

Wullu Wullu:

Parrish had the freedom do do what she did, and Mr Dithers only fired her after she questioned him. The US also had the right to be offeneded, but I don't recall any Americans threatening us with death threats or burning down our embassy or consulates.

I don't think your average american knows, or cares, about carrolyn parrish. Indeed even if you did tell them, they still probably wouldn't give a damn.

[DerbyX]

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

Ah, but if I struck you I could be charged by the police, no matter how heinous your statements. As to you uttering threats, you'd be charged and possibly incarcerated.

Yes you can be charged but the judge wil take into consideration the extenuating circumstances. Defending you wifes/childs honour would likely be upheld as a justifiable action then say punching someone out because they said your sports team sucks.

Its all part and parcel about the point I am making in that it isn't exacxtly free speech when it draws consequences.

[ShepherdsDog]

Indonesian Muslims are desacrating and burning Christian Churches, murdering Christians (men women and children), do we have a right to level mosques and set fire to their embassies? Islamic civilization in the 13th and 14th century was more tolerant than it is today.

[DerbyX]

Jaime_Souviens Jaime_Souviens:

DerbyX DerbyX:

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

if I say something about you in my house that you would find offensive, does that give you the right to tell me what I can or can not say in my house? Does it give you the right to burn down my properties??

reactions and consequences are varied

If I insulted your wife to your face does that give you the right to hit me?

If I expressed an opinion that I think you should be killed and commeted I will do it at a later date does that give the law the right to jail me?

If I belittled your child and called him useless in front of you does that give you the right to hit me?

Quite frankly I would vote yes in all 3 cases and I think you would as well. It would be an expected reaction given the circumstance.

At work I know certain things really bother some people while those same things don't bother others at all. Consequently I am mindful about which things bother which people because it makes sense and makes for a good workplace.

Being mindful that muslims are very touchy about their religion isn't kissing ass or bowing down to them and sometimes prudence is in order. That doesn't mean they can tell us what we can and cannot print/do though.

I'm sorry, I forgot to factor two millennia of Western Imperialism into the moral equation, so, of course, they can burn any buildings they want.

Since the West is MORALLY CULPABLE for the existence of modern civilization as it now stands, that means that any people elsewhere in the world are wholly justified in committing any acts of violence and terror they want.

I forgot that that's how that works.

You jackass.

Once again (and again and again and again..) you didn't grasp my point. Piss off.

[Jaime_Souviens]

DerbyX DerbyX:

Jaime_Souviens Jaime_Souviens:

DerbyX DerbyX:

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

if I say something about you in my house that you would find offensive, does that give you the right to tell me what I can or can not say in my house? Does it give you the right to burn down my properties??

reactions and consequences are varied

If I insulted your wife to your face does that give you the right to hit me?

If I expressed an opinion that I think you should be killed and commeted I will do it at a later date does that give the law the right to jail me?

If I belittled your child and called him useless in front of you does that give you the right to hit me?

Quite frankly I would vote yes in all 3 cases and I think you would as well. It would be an expected reaction given the circumstance.

At work I know certain things really bother some people while those same things don't bother others at all. Consequently I am mindful about which things bother which people because it makes sense and makes for a good workplace.

Being mindful that muslims are very touchy about their religion isn't kissing ass or bowing down to them and sometimes prudence is in order. That doesn't mean they can tell us what we can and cannot print/do though.

I'm sorry, I forgot to factor two millennia of Western Imperialism into the moral equation, so, of course, they can burn any buildings they want.

Since the West is MORALLY CULPABLE for the existence of modern civilization as it now stands, that means that any people elsewhere in the world are wholly justified in committing any acts of violence and terror they want.

I forgot that that's how that works.

You jackass.

Once again (and again and again and again..) you didn't grasp my point. Piss off.

Your points suck, that's why I don't accept them.

If you could make a valid, coherant point, perhaps I'd take it under consideration.

There are 13 year olds who've made more sensible posts on this site.

[DerbyX]

Wullu Wullu:

$1:

BTW, you felt that parrish not only should not have said it (thereby restricting her free speech) but likely feel that mps should not be allowed to voice their opinion like that even if they believe it because they represent Canada and such things aren't politically correct.

Just because our reactions are different then the muslims doesn't mean that we don't react in a similiar manner when something we cherish is mocked or insulted by someone else.

Please tell me where I felt that Parrish should not have said something? Do I agree with those things she is most famous for saying and doing? Nope. She still has the right to say em though. Last I checked MPs were still citizens of this country and can say whatever pops into their mind. I still have the right to question what they say. That's the way to ol system works.

Now to the second para here. When exactly did we threaten death or burn down an embassy. When I disagree with someone I tell them that and tell them why I disagree. I don't threaten their family with bodily harm.

I have small but well defined set of ethics I do my damdest to live by.

Do unto others as you would have done unto you ( I may be an atheist but I know a good idea when I see it )

I will defend to my dying breath your right to say something that I totally disagree with.

There are others but not really germain to what we are talking about here.

Over to you.

If it wewre truly free speech then it wouldn't draw consequences. Yes she can say what she wants without being killed for it but she was still sanctioned for it.

What we mean when we say free speech is actually "cheap" speech. We still have a reaction. We still make people how say things pay a price whether its they lose their job, get sued, get insulted back, etc....

Imagine if a muslim were saying "sure you are free to insult islam/mohammed, just expect a reaction (violence).

Now imagine an American saying "sure you can insult our country just expect a reaction (we won't buy your goods).

See how they can both be considered the same except for the level or reaction?

[Blue_Nose]

Hopefully I'm mistaken, but is there a debate as to whether or not the cartoons can justify burning down a goverment building?

This isn't a matter of religious/cultural tolerance. Arson and violence can't be justified rationally in this matter, regardless of the general temperment of Islamic radicals, or the fact that it was known that the cartoons would be offensive.

[Wullu]

Blue_Nose Blue_Nose:

Hopefully I'm mistaken, but is there a debate as to whether or not the cartoons can justify burning down a goverment building?

This isn't a matter of religious/cultural tolerance. Arson and violence can't be justified rationally in this matter, regardless of the general temperment of Islamic radicals, or the fact that it was known that the cartoons would be offensive.

Some here certainly seem to think that way BN........

[DerbyX]

Jaime_Souviens Jaime_Souviens:

Your points suck, that's why I don't accept them.

If you could make a valid, coherant point, perhaps I'd take it under consideration.

There are 13 year olds who've made more sensible posts on this site.

For you to think my points suck you would have to actually understand them whicj you never ever do. Others can. You can't. Its been a common theme with you and one that was pointed out by others in our very first debate.

Yet I mostly ignore you. Its you who keeps posting at me. Make an effort and ignore me then. I ignore you except when you post at me. You just can't stand that I have beaten you so often that your ego drives you to try and avenge yourself which is why you keep doing it.

If you have any integrity or conviction you will take my message to heart and not respond to this or any other post I make.

I find it easy to ignore you because you don't really contribute anything to the forum other then shrill bitching.

BYE-BYE.

[Blue_Nose]

DerbyX DerbyX:

Imagine if a muslim were saying "sure you are free to insult islam/mohammed, just expect a reaction (violence).

Now imagine an American saying "sure you can insult our country just expect a reaction (we won't buy your goods).

See how they can both be considered the same except for the level or reaction?

They aren't the same, even though both are reactions to the insult.

It's wrong, and illegal, to act violently towards someone for what they've said. It's not illegal to cease exchanging goods for something someone said. That's what free speech is all about - you can certainly react to it, but you can't act against the speaker.

When people in the Middle East walk on and burn Danish flags, for example, they're removing the chance of the Danes showing any sympathy for them, but you'll never see an act of agression specifically because of it.

[DerbyX]

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

Indonesian Muslims are desacrating and burning Christian Churches, murdering Christians (men women and children), do we have a right to level mosques and set fire to their embassies? Islamic civilization in the 13th and 14th century was more tolerant than it is today.

Here or there? Please specify. Muslims haven't invaded the US. Are they justified in doing so in response?