Poetry Forum

Full Version: that cartoons back
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2
Quote:The cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed that sparked protests worldwide four years ago will be republished in a new book soon.

Staffers at Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten said the cartoons will be in a book created by cultural editor Flemming Rose and will be titled "The Tyranny of Silence."

Rose could not be reached for comment.

The book is scheduled to hit stores on September 30, staffers said.

The cartoons were published in September 2006 and sparked worldwide protests after the reprinting of the caricatures in other publications.

source;

should the cartoon be allowed to be republished.

i definitely think so. if we're going to learn to live with one another we need to stop using some silly fucking cartoon as a rallying point for some holy fuckin war. we either want to live to gether or we don't. i say publish and be damned
in serious discussion we prefer the poster says a little more than "I agree" even if it is accompanied by images " Wink / admin

i struggle to comprehend how so many in a religion can go haywire at a cartoon. i personally don't think a god would want a holy war over a cartoon.
There was no reason they shouldn't have been allowed to be published in the first place so I can't see any reason they shouldn't be allowed to be republished.

Not to mention that they're widely available anyway so adding one more source is hardly a big deal.
it's weird how we can have differing views. not with each other but with ourselves.

i think we all have the right to paint or draw what we wish. to make it public or not as we see fit.
ye i feel that when something is published that we know will probably get us stalked, even at times to the point of death thread; (salmon rushdi) we shouldn't then expect the police to give us protection. if i poke a dog i know to be vicious in the eye with a stick i know i 'll prob get bitten, so i don't do it.

still, i do believe a cartoon is no worse that a verbal joke. and for me any verbal is fine.

as for the difference between drawing a cartoon and ddosing a site. for me there's a big difference. the latter can create financial loss. put people out of work even. a ddos is an attack that has a physical effect in that it stops us doing something. a cartoon affects us only on an emotional level. it doesn't close our site down, it doesn't stop us surfing a certain site. it doesn't put people out of work. the cartoon i can accept as humour, the physical retaliation i can't accept at all. though i understand them to a small degree.
rants are good here as long as they're part of the discussion moobsWink

i definitely agree that if someone is against what we say which we deem as free speech, the right is theirs to protest; though not with any kind of violence. not even with an impromptu march. a planned march by all means.

as for gaiman's quote; i think it sucks hairy balls for one reason.

speech free or otherwise never needs defending. it can be attacked by all means but it never needs defending. that fact actually makes the "then you are going to have to defend the indefensible." part a non starter.

any person who has a right to print any cartoon (the legal ones; non child porn) does not need to defend his actions, no matter how stupid they are. and one who says they believe Allah or god to be non existent or evil again need not defend himself. nor do islamic people have to defend their religious beliefs. the fact is that some just love to defend this shit in order to get publicity, become a martyr, sell newspapers or make a bit of quick cash. (just my opinion)
(09-23-2010, 08:05 AM)mr.moobs Wrote: [ -> ]The freedom of an artist is indisputable yes, but the endless reproductions like international drawmohhamad-day? What difference is there between that and 4chans ddossing of mpaa etc? (indeed the idea was concieved by the same anonymous guy whoever he is)
The difference is that if you "offend" someone you don't actually prevent them from carrying on with whatever they're doing or want to do, which "anonymous" has done.

(09-23-2010, 08:05 AM)mr.moobs Wrote: [ -> ]It all boils down to this: butthurt peeps resolving to stupidity in order to stir up stuff in lack of better wits and means. And such action, whatever valiant and noble ideals are behind it, always resolve in the same: escalated conflict. Is that how we wish to defend our freedom of speech? Escalating the conflict?
It's the only way we CAN defend our freedom of speech. Sure, you could stand on a street corner and demand the right to be able to tell people it's sunny after sunset; but nobody is trying to stop you from doing that so the point would be moot.

(09-23-2010, 08:05 AM)mr.moobs Wrote: [ -> ]Me, I quit voicing my opinion by going to demonstrations (my democratic right!) years ago; There's always at least one idiot determined on escalating the conflict somewhere in the crowd.
I'm the same. But I still wouldn't say that people shouldn't be allowed to demonstrate just because some people abuse the right.

(09-23-2010, 08:05 AM)mr.moobs Wrote: [ -> ]Actually, nowadays you cant really demonstrate in denmark. Do a sitdown and the police will paint your face.

Why is that? Because of assholes yelling stupid and angry shit real loud.
No, that is absolutely not the reason.

The reason you (and this doesn't just apply to Denmark) can't demonstrate is because officialdom has restricted your rights under the pretext of "protecting" you from people who yell stupid shit. But you don't need protecting from them--they're not the ones preventing you from yelling whatever stupid shit you might want to yell.

Faced with one guy carrying a megaphone and one guy carrying a long baton, it's the second guy you should be wary of.

(09-23-2010, 08:05 AM)mr.moobs Wrote: [ -> ]Shit throwing in the name of freedom? That is what will be the end of our glorious civilization.
Better to be allowed to throw shit than not allowed to throw legitimate protest. And make no mistake--they are two sides of exactly the same coin. Allow Governments to dictate who gets to say what and today they'll silence the firebrands, tomorrow they'll silence the idiots, and the day after that they'll silence the Opposition.
(09-23-2010, 08:15 PM)mr.moobs Wrote: [ -> ]Must a defense be agressive? Are we to believe there are no constructive alternatives to mockery and intellectual vandalism?
No, and no.

But that doesn't mean that a defense should not be allowed to be agressive.

And lets not forget who threw the first stone, so to speak. It wasn't the people who drew the "offensive" cartoons, it was the people who said "nobody is allowed to draw cartoons and we will kill anyone who does so."

(09-23-2010, 02:11 PM)Touchstone Wrote: [ -> ]I never said so, and certainly didnt mean to imply any of the kind. I drew the comparison in order to illustrate how vandals (or trolls if you like) makes a perfect excuse for politics to circumvent the principle of free speech in some cases.
Step back and think about what you've just said--people shouldn't make full use of their rights because if they do then those rights might be taken away.

If that is so, then they really don't have those rights now.

And the people you should be condemning for that are the governments who take the rights away, not the protestors who try to exercise them.

(09-23-2010, 02:11 PM)Touchstone Wrote: [ -> ]"yelling stupid and angry shit real loud" is a figure of speech.
I understand that; I used it the same way.

Look, IIRC you're in an interracial relationship--some people consider such things offensive. I don't, but if you're saying that people should not be allowed to voice strong anti-muslim sentiments because some people might be offended by that, then why would you not accept the government's right to deny you the right to your relationship, because some people might be offended by it.

(09-23-2010, 02:11 PM)Touchstone Wrote: [ -> ]I am sorry if I have not made myself clear, but let me try another phrase: Deliberate instigators of mayhem. They are found on both sides of the barricades, and are usually far more succesfull than negociaters of peace.
Who, really, is the instigator here? The people who have stepped over an arbitrary line, or the people who drew an arbitrary line and said "cross that and we'll kill you"?

(09-23-2010, 02:11 PM)Touchstone Wrote: [ -> ]What I do wish is that people would stop regurgitating the slogans and propaganda of instigators and warmonkers, and in stead use what freedom they have left in a constructive way. This is a time of crisis, and if we respond to our fears and resolve to agression, the end is surely near.
I wish the same. I just don't see it as being one sided. Sure, people "A" could choose not to draw cartoons. But people "B" could just as easily choose not to kill people for drawing cartoons. And frankly, I consider the violent over-reactors to the be the greater danger to our future.

mrmod

(09-23-2010, 08:05 AM)mr.moobs Wrote: [ -> ]Actually, nowadays you cant really demonstrate in denmark. Do a sitdown and the police will paint your face.

Well then sometimes you can't blame a crowd for getting angry. You say it's only angry idiots that start them, but in this case it obviously isn't. I wouldn't blame that crowd for getting violent (which they didn't) as they were being mauled by police batons.

Now I'm not going to argue whether they should or should not rise up to the police but I will say that the police handled that pretty badly.


Back on TopicLand, I agree with TS. I don't see why they should of been forbidden then and I don't see it now...

mrmod

(09-24-2010, 02:59 AM)mr.moobs Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-24-2010, 01:41 AM)SidewaysDan Wrote: [ -> ]Back on TopicLand, I agree with TS. I don't see why they should of been forbidden then and I don't see it now...

I've never disagreed on that. I've just tried to argue that the drawing in question is nothing but a tasteless and malignant piece of crap, not worthy of the icon status it has been given. And that should we choose it as a banner in our flagship for free speech, we take a bugshot at our own feet.

You got me wrong. I didn't say you disagreed, I was just giving my general view on the situation (as in I wasn't replying) Blush.

But discussing what you said, it may be tasteless or malignant if you view it that way but the response that the majority of people had when they heard it was banned, illustrates their beliefs on the right to free speech and of free art etc. And I don't think we chose it as a banner, but just the attempt at suppression has led to the cartoon automatically becoming a markstone in the history of free speech.

Funny thing is, if it were a pro-Nazi cartoon, not one iota of the people who procclaimed the right to free speech would have given a rat's fart. But it works on the same principle. Undecided
the person who drew the cartoon may have been antagonistic douche, he may have been using it to show a layer of foreign society through humor.
the person whose putting it in a book and selling it is in it for cash. are they antagonist, lets say yes. at their worst that's all they are, antagonistic idiots. at best normal people doing what they do to get by. i know at the end of the day i'd much sooner have an antagonist wanker than a bomb wearing islamist or a threatening moron who can't or wont distinguish the difference between arrogant humour and physical death threats. it all seems one sided. we can't do this, we can't do that, if we burnt islamic flags, threw islamic tourist in jail or pulled some of the stunts some of them pull , i'd think a cartoon was beyound mild and downright namby pamby.

lets not forget that these countries who allow these cartoons also allow people to follow their own religion (don't mention the 9/11 fiasco please) while the countries who don't allow the cartoons. are often the opposite. (in general)

here in the west when some idot says lets burn the koran there's uproar.
if an islamic leader in the middle east said lets burn the bible. they'd be dancing in the streets round the fire. i personally think we have to put it in perspective.
--------------------------------
(09-24-2010, 07:27 AM)mr.moobs Wrote: [ -> ]This is true, but then again - we havent really seen any military invasion of muslims on our own ground for the last couple of centuries.
you think the wouldn't physically invade if they could?

what is our own ground? holland, europe, the usa, russia, the philippines
china, india, pakistan, afghanistan sudan, russia, mozambique, or do you mean the europe and the usa?.
attacks

i class killing 4000 people on foriegn soil an attack, unless of course you believe it didn't happen or the usa gov did it itself. i class multiple accounts of terror attacks an act of war and invasion. every day i see and hear reports of extremists from outside pakistan entering their country and devastating their infrastructure in a bid to destroy their society. do you seriously think all the trouble has come about because we invade iraq? or because drones attack targets on the afghan/pakistan border? if we never invaded and before we did invade life was exactly the same there. same rules same oppressions. you can't use us as an excuse for their brutalities. if no iraq invasion had taken place if no afghan war took place they'd still be screaming kill the infidel if anyone drew the same cartoon.

(09-24-2010, 07:27 AM)mr.moobs Wrote: [ -> ]If you know the weak spots, its easy to troll. Knowing well the taboos of christianity we could all drive heaps of fundamentalist christians to the very extreme of their violent anger, without burning anything. And what would that gain us? Great landwinnings in the battle of freedom of speech? Or just more angry people ready to go to extremes for their whatever they believe in?
and though it is getting a bit off topic re the cartoon. are you saying we invaded they're country there fore you can't create a cartoon against our religion. making cartoons to mock the stupidity of religion isn't something new. if anything christianity gets it more than most. as far as book burning goes. i think the last lot to do it were the taliban in order to subjugate the afghans. and they did it en masse. before that pol pot did it and before that hitlers mob. the cartoon though i disagree with it made more than one valid statement about society and religion as a global entity. as for anti christian sentiments. the west is full of it. it's allowed to speak out against christianity. if you have islamic parents in the middle east and you say," hey dad fuck islan i don't believe in allah" the odds are you'll be in deep shit. possibly even stoned to death. as for great landwinnings in the freedom of speech. i'm a bit confused. what landwinning? we already have freedom of speech (within a paradigm ) we don't draw cartoons or call the catholic church a nest of pedofiles because we're extending free speech. we say it because thats what we blieve. maybe the guy who did the original cartoon thought it was a good way of showing extremists up for waht they were. people ready to kill at the drop of a hat. (excuse the pun) to say that physical action wasn't intend from the extremists is something i can't agree with. searching someone down and smacking them in the face is a physical attack. yo really think salmon rushdi (a book not cartoon) wrote what he did because he had free speech? he wrote because he saw something he felt was fundamentally wrong. in his case it ws a book. in the artist's case it was a cartoon. this final instance a book with the cartoon in it.

sorry but i can't get my head round this " he drew that, they invaded this part of of the world, we should attack them" argument. if we attacked their country for a million years, it doesn't give them the right to put bounty on someones head for drawing a cartoon. it gives them a right to fight back but to threaten death over a cartoon. sorry, i can't see the logic.

(09-24-2010, 07:27 AM)mr.moobs Wrote: [ -> ]Please correct me if I'm wrong (I'm sure you will), but I can only remeber two allegedly 'islamic' terrorsit bombings in Europe. One was the london busse, the other was the Madrid Subway. There has never been anything but allegations and media spin to support the now accepted theory that the mullahs were behind it. (what happened to judicial rights???!!!1 - innocent until proven guilty)

The rest of the stories (not mentioning 911 by request), goes on in the middle-east and is directly linked to the various conflicts caused by western and/or israeli military presence in those areas.
so you think indonesia, the philippines, africa, russia, and another dozen countries where islamim extremist have killed in the name of allah doesn't count then? if anything europe and the usa are the tip or the extremists iceberg. look to the sudan and darfur where there actually trying to take over the country, through starvation, torture, and terrorist attacks. all documented.
indonesia. it's documented there as well with convictions of dozens.

the Philippines, it's also documented there with hundreds of deaths and conviction. each one of these places has a muslim terrorist group or org in place and it's all documented. even in russia. Moscow, Female Fedayeen suicide bomber kills six people near the Kremlin and injures at least fourteen, including several college students. the list is endless. it really is.

to say the west caused all the problems over there i find astounding. there has been in fighting on the same scale or bigger before any country was invaded by the west. you think all the bombing in pakistan and india and the Yemen. and iraq and on and on is because of the west? it's much more to do with taking ownership of a people, race or land. the pakistan border has moved more and more into pakistn. the taliban and al Qaeda have over run the swat valley areas and more. it's so bad the pakistan gov has no idea whos who. yes the west invaded, yes they cause much harm but don't blame them for what the taliban and alqueda ever did. what they were doing way before even the russians invaded afghanistan. and all this from one cartoon. it boils down to one unholy drawing? most of the bombing and fighting over there is happening within their own socio politico environment, independently of the west jm2cents Smile



Poke a stick at a vicious dog, then you deserve to get bit.
Play with fire, then you deserve to get burned.
Tread water in stormy weather, your'e probably going to drown.
Insult anothers God in the most dispicable, disrespectful, and degrading possible manner and you probably will get bit and burned too.
Yes free speech must be absolute, but if you are going abuse the right then one needs to take responsiblity for their actions and the consequences that arise from such abuse.
You can insult Catholics, Christians, Muslims etc. etc. but when it comes to attacking someones God this is when things can turn ugly. I'm not trying to defend aggressive behaviour, but you're dealing with emotions of the highest peak when it comes to a people's God.
What I get tired of is people who insist on pushing rights to the point of instigating a war ... and for what? because they're spoiled brats that want they're way at all costs, and piss on everybody else if they get in the line of fire. When does accountablily come into play?
Sadly, the instigators hardly ever suffer the consequences, it's usually innocent people that get caught in the anger and retalliation.

So you're saying you're happy for some bearded lunatic in Tehran to say what sort of pictures your kid should be allowed to draw; because if your kid drew a picture that the loony claimed was "offensive" then he would obviously have no choice but to decapitate him; and if the poor bewhiskered whackjob ended up in jail as a result you would feel guilty for having been such a lousy parent.

You may think bullies should be allowed to prosper. We will have to agree to differ.

(09-24-2010, 04:07 PM)Touchstone Wrote: [ -> ]So you're saying you're happy for some bearded lunatic in Tehran to say what sort of pictures your kid should be allowed to draw

No, no, no, I'm not saying that at all. I clearly said freedom of speech must be absolute. But if you are going to play with fire, and these cartoonist are, then they need to expect (not deserve) to get burned ... they are dealing with extreme radicals.
Should one be allowed to draw, write, sing about whatever they want? Absolutely, but if you choose to spread your thoughts in a disrespectful, and degrading manner then you need to expect strong oppostion. We live in a world full of extremists, angry people, illogical thinkers, crazies ... not everybody is nice here. Because I understand how my world can be sometimes, I would not in all consciousness draw a picture of someones beloved God in such a manner that could have dire consequences for others.
If I go into a rough-end bar carrying my freedom of speech banner and proceed to tell them all what a bunch of low-life degenerates they are then I'm going to take an ass kicking. These cartoonists are operating in the same fashion only in a much larger bar, and the consequences will fall mostly on the innocent.
What I'm talking about is accountability. Now those doing the ass kicking must be dealt with also.
I'm trying to understand the motive of these cartoonists. Is it purely for a laugh? Freedom of speech rights? Are they trying to educate? Or are they arrogant and selfish attention seekers willing to push their idea no matter what the costs?

(09-24-2010, 04:07 PM)Touchstone Wrote: [ -> ]; because if your kid drew a picture that the loony claimed was "offensive" then he would obviously have no choice but to decapitate him; and if the poor bewhiskered whackjob ended up in jail as a result you would feel guilty for having been such a lousy parent.

Of course not. Even a radical extremeist would understand the source (a child). These cartoonists are not children. They are adults, adults lacking descretsion, and respect towards others imo.
I have raised two children and I'd like to think I instilled in them the need to respect others and to treat others as they would indeed wish to be treated themselves. If they choose to become disrespectful I take no ownership of that ... they are now adults and their accountability lies in their own laps.
I don't for one second believe they did not know what could possibly arise from all this. Would you willingly draw a picture that could put innocent people in harmsway? And we're not talking about innocent buddy/buddy fooling around drawing nasty pictures at a friends house ... we're talking about going huge and publising for all the world to see ... all for what?

I too believe it's ridiculous this whole thing of drawing a picture could ignite such anger ... but we're dealing with very extreme volitile people. Insult their children/wife/customs/religion and you'll piss them off. Insult their beloved God ... they'll go to war over him/her/it.


(09-24-2010, 04:07 PM)Touchstone Wrote: [ -> ]You may think bullies should be allowed to prosper. We will have to agree to differ.

No, I don't think bullies should be allowed to prosper. They need to be dealt with accordingly.


(09-25-2010, 03:38 AM)kath3 Wrote: [ -> ]No, no, no, I'm not saying that at all. I clearly said freedom of speech must be absolute. But if you are going to play with fire, and these cartoonist are, then they need to expect (not deserve) to get burned ...

Sorry, I misunderstood. That's a fair point.

(09-25-2010, 03:38 AM)kath3 Wrote: [ -> ]I'm trying to understand the motive of these cartoonists. Is it purely for a laugh? Freedom of speech rights? Are they trying to educate? Or are they arrogant and selfish attention seekers willing to push their idea no matter what the costs?

Different people will have different motives. One thing you can be sure of though--they are reactionary, they are not the initial provocateurs. They (at least in most cases) wouldn't be doing the cartoons if they hadn't been told (by someone who has no authority to tell them) that they shouldn't. Whenever someone tells people they cannot do something it seems to be a natural human reaction to do it.

(09-24-2010, 04:07 PM)Touchstone Wrote: [ -> ]Of course not. Even a radical extremeist would understand the source (a child). These cartoonists are not children. They are adults, adults lacking descretsion, and respect towards others imo.

But the point is that they aren't saying "you should only draw the Prophet if you are young or doing so respectfully" they are saying "you should not draw the prophet, period". That's an absolute which they have no right to even try to impose upon people who are not part of their group.

Look at it this way: the Nazi's said "we find homosexuality offensive, so we're going to kill anyone who indulges in it." The Muslims say "we find cartoons of the prophet offensive, so we will kill anyone who indulges indulges in drawing them". The Nazi's were far stronger and more willing to wage war than the Muslims, yet we stood up to their intolerance. To kowtow to Muslim intolerance because we're scared of what they might do to us is spineless and in our worst interests. I don't by any means want a war, or any violence, but if there is violence it will be wholly the fault of the people who have attempted to restrict the freedoms of others, not of those who have attempted to fully utilize their freedoms.
(09-25-2010, 12:50 PM)Touchstone Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-25-2010, 03:38 AM)kath3 Wrote: [ -> ]No, no, no, I'm not saying that at all. I clearly said freedom of speech must be absolute. But if you are going to play with fire, and these cartoonist are, then they need to expect (not deserve) to get burned ...
Sorry, I misunderstood. That's a fair point.
i think out of all the debate the two points above are the two truisms that stand out above anything else.

i would add that i think the original cartoons were done, not out of derision, but out of a need for them to portray an aspect of society on more than one level. satire is i'm sure, not the only reasons cartoons are printed. one of the most famous (plantu) would make social statements on and about all levels and aspects of society but say's he would think of the consequences

and excerpt for an interview he did;

Is the cartoonist's job different in other countries?

Not in our heads. When a cartoonist sits down to think of an idea, I don't think it matters where he's from. If you looked inside our heads, you'd see the same cogs whirring round.

However, for example, I went to Qatar and spoke to an Al Jazeera cartoonist and I said to him: "Your drawings about Sharon, for example, or Bin Laden, are quite kind - don't you want to be more critical?" He said: "Yes, but my editor wouldn't want it.”

There is the fear of displeasing the editor, and the editor is afraid of displeasing a minister. If the minister is displeased the journalist will be gone. An Egyptian paper printed the Danish cartoons and the editor was jailed.


source:

i would like to add that i think all serious discussion should be treated the way this one was. Wink
(09-25-2010, 06:31 AM)velvetfog Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-25-2010, 03:38 AM)kath3 Wrote: [ -> ]I'm trying to understand the motive of these cartoonists. Is it purely for a laugh? Freedom of speech rights? Are they trying to educate? Or are they arrogant and selfish attention seekers willing to push their idea no matter what the costs?

Read the wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Po...ontroversy

Very interesting read ... thank you.

Quote from the article: In October 2005, the Danish daily Politiken polled thirty-one of the forty-three members of the Danish cartoonist association. Twenty-three said they would be willing to draw Muhammad. One had doubts, one would not be willing because of fear of possible reprisals and six cartoonists would not be willing because they respected the Muslim ban on depicting Muhammad.

I agree with the last six ... who, by their unwillingness to participate adhear to a code of value for others, upholding respect and tolerance.

On 27 October 2005, a number of Muslim organizations filed a complaint with the Danish police claiming that Jyllands-Posten had committed an offence under section 140 and 266b of the Danish Criminal Code.

Section 140 of the Criminal Code, known as the blasphemy law, prohibits disturbing public order by publicly ridiculing or insulting the dogmas of worship of any lawfully existing religious community in Denmark.

Section 266b criminalises insult, threat or degradation of natural persons, by publicly and with malice attacking their race, color of skin, national or ethnical roots, faith or sexual orientation.

I'm sad to say I don't know if Canada has such laws. I did a google but only found >>> Freedom of religion in Canada is a constitutionally protected right, allowing believers the freedom to assemble and worship without limitation or interference.

Anyways, there have been some very good points brought forth and it has been a good discussion. I was involved in a similar debate reguarding freedom of speech within Suprbay where a member said ... "just because you have the right to say anything you want does not mean you should say anything you want".

It is my personal opinion that the cartoons should not be published.


I've heard the argument that if Christians can take jokes about Jesus with a grain of salt (and mind you, not all Christians do) then Muhammad should be fair game. But our values are different, obviously.

I understand the logic. I understand that people are apparently wired to impose their values on others (muslims are imposing their conservative values on the cartoonist, the cartoonist is imposing his liberal values on them). But to police a group of people's thoughts and feelings and tell them that their values are ridiculous is... an exhausting exercise. So unless rocking the boat would actually be constructive and humane, it just ends up painful. Should it be punished? Not really, in this case. It's a cartoonists JOB to rock the boat.



i agree. and on occasion, even "tip the boat over" (that brings back memories of carl douglas but i digress) but i do think that sometimes they get it wrong, go too far if that's possible, still if we didn't have people that took societies differences to and beyond the limit i think we would have much less freedoms than we do now.

on a personal level i think the guy putting the book out with the pics is just in it for the cash. nothing wrong with that but for me he loses a lot of his credibility. the first time the pics came out i felt it a reasonable statement on the differences within society on a religious level. the guy who did them the 2nd time knew full well what he was doing and it wasn't giving us a lesson in social differences through satire or creative interpretation. i wouldn't lose sleep should he cop a stiff one. (though i don't believe anyone has the right to physically attack him.)

again some of the things going on in the islamic/muslim world do disturb me though i'm still able to have happy dreams at night. their treatment of women doesn't fit in to my paradigm. because of this i feel them unjust in many ways.

should we attack or alienate them, of course not. nor they us for not believing what they believe.
and in general i don't think we do. both sides have fringe elements who as extremists take their beliefs to some non existent level and forcibly shove it down other peoples throats.

to get back on topic i have to say the original cartoonists are not the fringe elemnt or extremists. and should not be treated as such.
(09-27-2010, 09:13 AM)billy Wrote: [ -> ]on a personal level i think the guy putting the book out with the pics is just in it for the cash. nothing wrong with that but for me he loses a lot of his credibility.

I don't know and I'll confess to being too lazy to research it but from your opening post: "the cartoons will be in a book created by cultural editor Flemming Rose and will be titled "The Tyranny of Silence" it sounds to me like it's probably an academic-ish examination of cultural differences and reactions to taboos and the breaking of them. If that is the case then I doubt it would actually make much cash and it would presumably be fairly credible.
Pages: 1 2