nasty cartoons

[billy]

on the face of it i'd say he acting in an uncivilized manner.

and as far as i know parts of the middle east were the birth place of civilization as we know it. (turkey syria etc)
civility like everything else is the thing most widely abused in comedy or artwork (especially cartoons)

no matter how much i think the guy was a schmuck, i can't bring myself to say what he did was illegal, stupid and crass yes but not illegal.

what his attackers did was definitely illegal.

the guys crassness does not and never will justify violence even upto murder.

[kath3]

absolutely! 100% ... as you said ... no matter how much i think the guy was a schmuck, i can't bring myself to say what he did was illegal, stupid and crass yes but not illegal.

what his attackers did was definitely illegal.

the guys crassness does not and never will justify violence even upto murder.

[billy]

off topic in order to say.

hi kath3 if you or any other member can think of a good serious or general topic to discuss, please please post it

[mrmod]

Vilks is an educated man from a civilized nation who disreguarded the very essence of what it means to be civilized. He chose to provoke, ridicule, and insult an entire group of people to make his point about a belief system that he disappoves of. Not only was this done in an uncivilized manner it was childish.
I certainly don't know Vilks, I've read a bit about this controversy ... that his works have been banned in other countries for fear of retaliation and yet he continued to push his work/art ... for what ... the right to Free Speech ... give me a break. I see Vilks as an attention grabber, a spoiled kid determined to get his way at all costs. Well I hope the price he is paying now is worth it to himself and his family.
If Vilks truely is concerned for the right to Free Speech perhaps he should have used a more dignified way to express himself.

Aren't we all childish sometimes? Vilks suffers from the same flaws as all of us. He was entitled to say/paint what he deemed fit, even if other people deemed offensive to the point of murder.

The difference is that the caricature did not kill anyone. Whereas the extremist would really like to (and have done to other people).

Plus, what would we do without comedy? The ability to be able to ridicule anything is good because it does away with any ideas of perfection and makes us smile and laugh.

You didn't have to find it funny. Hell, you could even say you didn't like it (free speech on your part) but as soon as anyone thought of hurting him you'd be breaking the laws of being civilised.

He did it because he could and that's admirable. Whether it was rude or not does not grant license to take someone's life. As I say, we've all been rude (I'm guessing even you, who's generally really polite ).

[kath3]

Vilks is an educated man from a civilized nation who disreguarded the very essence of what it means to be civilized. He chose to provoke, ridicule, and insult an entire group of people to make his point about a belief system that he disappoves of. Not only was this done in an uncivilized manner it was childish.
I certainly don't know Vilks, I've read a bit about this controversy ... that his works have been banned in other countries for fear of retaliation and yet he continued to push his work/art ... for what ... the right to Free Speech ... give me a break. I see Vilks as an attention grabber, a spoiled kid determined to get his way at all costs. Well I hope the price he is paying now is worth it to himself and his family.
If Vilks truely is concerned for the right to Free Speech perhaps he should have used a more dignified way to express himself.

Aren't we all childish sometimes? Vilks suffers from the same flaws as all of us. He was entitled to say/paint what he deemed fit, even if other people deemed offensive to the point of murder.

The difference is that the caricature did not kill anyone. Whereas the extremist would really like to (and have done to other people).

Plus, what would we do without comedy? The ability to be able to ridicule anything is good because it does away with any ideas of perfection and makes us smile and laugh.

You didn't have to find it funny. Hell, you could even say you didn't like it (free speech on your part) but as soon as anyone thought of hurting him you'd be breaking the laws of being civilised.

He did it because he could and that's admirable. Whether it was rude or not does not grant license to take someone's life. As I say, we've all been rude (I'm guessing even you, who's generally really polite ).

Oh yes, I can be down right nasty when it comes to an arguement with my husband.

True we all can be childish. Vilks in my personal opinion was not only being childish, he was being rude, degrading, incensitive, provoking, and perhaps above all instigative lacking all sense of integrity, respect and civility all within one drawing.

You and I are certainly in agreement with the fact that Vilks has every right to say what he wishes without fear of harm. Where I disagree with you is that just because one has the right to say whatever he/she wants doesn't make him/her right to say whatever he/she wants.
Vilks by expressing himself in such a manner has not only provoked retalilation against himself and his family but upon innocent people.

In no way do I find his actions admirable. I see him as an instigator.

Just an analogy ... There's a bitbull in a cage (muslim extremeist) Vilks comes along with a stick (free speech) and pokes at the dog with the stick to the point that the dog is now angry and ready to fight. Along comes a mother with a child ... the child happy to see the dog approaches it only to be bitten.
Vilks has come and gone and is out of the picture and even has police protection. The innocent are left with an angry dog and no protection.

Talk about taking something to the limits. Is his right to draw really worth the anguish that it has brought about. In my personal opinion ... absolutely not. If Vilks was speaking out against injustices towards humanity in a decent manner he would have my full support.

[mrmod]

Just an analogy ... There's a bitbull in a cage (muslim extremeist) Vilks comes along with a stick (free speech) and pokes at the dog with the stick to the point that the dog is now angry and ready to fight. Along comes a mother with a child ... the child happy to see the dog approaches it only to be bitten.
Vilks has come and gone and is out of the picture and even has police protection. The innocent are left with an angry dog and no protection.

Talk about taking something to the limits. Is his right to draw really worth the anguish that it has brought about. In my personal opinion ... absolutely not. If Vilks was speaking out against injustices towards humanity in a decent manner he would have my full support.

So according to your analogy we can only do what others deem acceptable and not rude. We can't use our minds and express our opinions because that would perhaps anger someone? We must follow the crowd and the taboo must not be broken.

Neither you nor I (well, I don't think you do but I cannot be certain) know Vilks personally so we cannot judge his character. He could be a horrible character or a really affable guy.

But his actions show about him. He had the courage to break a taboo. He stood up to the angry dog and said "quit your barking!" (using your analogy, the dog was angry before Vilks came in the equation). He had an idea and he carried it through.

Who's at wrong here are the extremists who just simply cannot take criticism. Everything has been ridiculed. I've heard some pretty nasty remarks about my country and I said "y'know what? I see what they're getting at." And I see their point of view. The extremists have only made the situation worse by resorting to violence.

[kath3]

No ... not at all.
Maybe I really, really suck at explaining myself.
Vilks was not attacking someone's mother, the big nose on someones face, their political party ,country or religion ... he was attacking a people's beloved God ... a highly sensitive subject in the most vulgar possible way with the intent to provoke, and he succeed. I'm just trying to say that Vilks is not some nieve idiot joking with a few buddies ... that he shares in the responsiblity of the out come.
Yes they have and they are wrong, wrong, wrong in their actions yet I can hold an element of understanding ... not with their actions but in understanding their hurt.
I also believe that Vilks is not so innocent that he should not share in the responsibility of the reaction that he has nudge into motion.
This is where you and I are at heads. I do hear you though and I think we agree quite a bit. I just don't approve of his tactics. My greatest concern is for the innocent that will be brought down all for the sake of one man's right in wanting to and intending to insult ... I see him as an emotional bully.
I've enjoyed our going back and forth but I'm not sure we will entirely agree on this one and that's ok. What's most important is that we shared opposing views with respect and dignity towards each other. We've given each other food for thought.

[billy]

my turn ;

a cartoonists role in the genre of of vilks is one of bringing to light certain apsects of the human condition.

if people like him didn't do their parodies and caricatures, a lot of things would pass us by without being noticed. in olden days it was pepes and his diaries, another well respected cartoonist was went under the name puc he also did similar stuff.

in the second world war, no cartoonist worth his salt had passed up the chance to show Hitler, Goebbels, or Mussolini in as bad a light as possible.

the pope has been characterized from here to eternity in much the same if not worse way and the christ god ad his followers are reviled for the main part in most of the middle east. much of this animosity being shown through anti west hatred and the burning of flags. (one of the greatest symbols a country can have)

even serious critique of muslim ways bring the same sort of retaliation as vilks himself received. salmon rushdi to name just one.

what i've noticed in this thread is this.

we all think vilks wasn't breaking laws.
some think he wasn't making a social statement but flagrantly trying to improve his stature by spreading hate.
we all think the retaliation he go was illegal.


what i find a little offensive is this.

a person draws a cartoon , knowing it will in all intent and purpose create or at the very least antagonize religious hatred.
the same person then expects round the clock police protection.
i find it hard to believe he didn't know what the outcome would be. he could have sent the cartoon in anon. and save all the hoohah, but he chose to be famous instead.

personally i'd say stop paying the police to protect idiots like this and put them to better use.

we're all accountable for our actions though in this instance it seems that some are less accountable than others.

was the brave. i don't think so. i think he was greedy for fame jmo

[kath3]

my turn

what i've noticed in this thread is this.

we all think vilks wasn't breaking laws.
some think he wasn't making a social statement but flagrantly trying to improve his stature by spreading hate.
we all think the retaliation he go was illegal.


what i find a little offensive is this.

a person draws a cartoon , knowing it will in all intent and purpose create or at the very least antagonize religious hatred.
the same person then expects round the clock police protection.
i find it hard to believe he didn't know what the outcome would be. he could have sent the cartoon in anon. and save all the hoohah, but he chose to be famous instead.

personally i'd say stop paying the police to protect idiots like this and put them to better use.

we're all accountable for our actions though in this instance it seems that some are less accountable than others.

was the brave. i don't think so. i think he was greedy for fame jmo

YES ... YES ... YES!!! :metal: