|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Was it worth it? |
| Certainly |
|
50% |
[ 11 ] |
| Probably |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
| Not sure |
|
13% |
[ 3 ] |
| Probably not |
|
18% |
[ 4 ] |
| Certainly not |
|
13% |
[ 3 ] |
| I couldn't give a rat's **** |
|
4% |
[ 1 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 22 |
|
| Author |
Message |
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
 Posted: Thu Jan 07, 2010 10:01 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| Gopher wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| I don't pretend to know the creators' and publishers' intentions. If you have some links that might serve as revelations, this may be the thread to post them in. |
Well, it is a political cartoon. Self-evident politics and message. Not exactly cubist art requiring extensive interpretation. |
I would say the message is: Mohammed's revelation that the Qu'ran is the direct word of God leads to more suicide bombings than Danish cartoons can bring about by themselves. |
Keeping Dale Carnegie and M. Gandhi's advice in mind (they offered much the same advice), do you find this method a particularly effective one in introducing and movitivating change in the Muslim world, particularly extremist Muslims?
One does not have to cow in submission to religious fundamentalism and terrorist threats. One should, however, offer constructive, effective critique.
And from what I have seen the Dutch press has no concept whatsoever of this. Dangling people's faults and shortcomings before them, ridiculing their dark side, and insulting their god is no way to go about this, Kuros. "Free speech" may give us the right to be stupid, offensive, and antagonistic, and most seem to take advantage of these rights. But that does not mean that those who do this do not remain utter morons and, in my view, fully deserving that which they consciously provoke.
Last edited by Gopher on Thu Jan 07, 2010 10:06 am; edited 3 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Adventurer
Joined: 28 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 07, 2010 10:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
The cartoons betrayed poor judgment as well as undue anti-Muslim antagonism.
Why throw pointless rocks at rattlesnakes...? |
I agree with Gopher that doing the cartoons showed poor judgement.
Again, Flemming Rose is not Danish in origin, he's Russian. He created a lot of headache for Denmark. He chose to approve the cartoons. If he believed he would have possibly had a violent reaction to an attack on a religious figure, then he exercised poor judgement in approving the cartoons. It doesn't excuse the felonious behavior of some Muslims. I think the editor is also for his reactions in life which led him to do what he did, as well.
Some people want to go on some ideological offensive against Islam as if to use the force of words to put down that said religion. Then, you get some of the people from that religion of the more extreme elements reacting to that. They are challenging them in a way and getting a reaction all right. I don't think Carvallo who made a chocolate Jesus was necessarily trying to attack Christians. He was doing that as an artist.
He wasn't against the church or Catholics. He considered himself Catholic. Rose and Westergaard were going on an ideological offensive, perhaps, so it's a different motivation.
In the end, in the future, we will hopefully have less religiously charged people in that part of the world and other places. People in the past were offended in the US and other places when they would see say Elvis on stage dancing, but now it's accepted. People reacted harshly back then to that. Sometimes, when you get sharp reactions it eventually leads to people simmering down. In the short run, you get a mess. Is this the best way to reduce excessive religiousity? I don't think so. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kimbop
Joined: 31 Mar 2008
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 07, 2010 10:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
There's nothing wrong with drawing a picture of a man and calling it mohammed.
There's nothing wrong with naming a teddy bear mohammed.
There's nothing wrong with wearing a bikini at the beach.
There's nothing wrong with two people of the same sex loving & living together. Leave them in peace.
There's nothing wrong with drinking tequila.
There's nothing wrong with flying kites or dancing.
Acknowledging and capitulating to the demands of fascist psychopaths does not address the root problem of why the middle east is a dangerous, evil place.
| Quote: |
| "I do not seek to offend religious sentiment, but I will not submit to tyranny. Demanding that people who do not accept Muhammad�s teachings should refrain from drawing him is not a request for respect but a demand for submission." |
| Gopher wrote: |
The cartoons betrayed poor judgment as well as undue anti-Muslim antagonism.
Why throw pointless rocks at rattlesnakes...? |
C'mon Gopher; anti muslim antagonism is definitely due worldwide (unless you've never heard of any innocent person's human rights being violated in a muslim country), because islamofascist brainwashing is the root of this global pandemic. The problem isn't energetic, fast-producing mooslim "youths"; the problem is adherance. But this is besides the point: if you become furiously outraged at my wearing of pink socks, your head needs examining. If 1 billion psychopaths are outraged at my wearing of pink socks, we can only hope that next year only 900,000 psychopaths will be outraged. And hopefully the next year will see 800,000. And so it will go. This is progress.
Submission is not.
A few hundred people died because of some cartoons. Were their deaths worth it? Ask the muslims who killed them. A better question is: Was the ensuing worldwide therapy session worth it? We can only hope. But logic/freedom/human rights/gender equality etc must never capitulate. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 07, 2010 10:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Therefore, given that they are interpreting Islam as a political philosophy, cartoonists have every right to lampoon these violent political ideas and the authority figure that supports them. Hence Westergaard drew Mohammed with the bomb in his turban and the newspaper published it.
|
Not exactly. The newspaper originally solicited the cartoons because(as they announced when they published them) they wanted to break the taboo against publishing pictures of Muahmmed, a taboo which is observed out of deference to Muslim notions of blasphemy. Westergaard's cartoon happened to deal with the issue of Muslim-related violence, but that wasn't the reason the paper commissioned it to begin with.
A comparison would be if the LA Times editors were to say to themselves "You know, this Christian taboo against showing Jesus as a sex pervert is kind of silly. Let's ask a few cartooninsts to draw something along those lines and publish the pictures just to make a point". And then one of the cartoonists draws Jesus dressed as a pedophiliac priest eyeing a small boy lasciviously, in reference to the issue of clerical child abuse.
Suffice to say I don't think too many mainstream western newspapers would commission something like that, much less publish a cartoon such as I have described. Hustler or Southpark might, which is why I said that the Jyllands-Posten would seem to have more in common with those types of media outlets than with a regular newspaper.
And I'm apparantly not the only person who holds this dismal opinion about the Jyllands-Posten's standards. It's often forgotten that two of the cartoons they accepted contained criticism of their editors for creating the project in the first place.
| Quote: |
A 7th grade Middle-Eastern looking boy in front of a blackboard. Sticking out his tongue, he points to a Persian passage written on the board with chalk, which translates into "The editorial team of Jyllands-Posten is a bunch of reactionary provocateurs". The boy is labelled "Mohammed, Valby school, 7.A", implying that he is a second-generation child of immigrants to Denmark rather than the founder of Islam. On his shirt is written "FREM" and then in a new line "-TIDEN". Fremtiden means the future, but Frem (forward) is also the name of a Valby football team whose uniforms resemble the boy's shirt. The cartoonist who drew this particular cartoon was the first to receive death threats and left his home in Valby.[1]
|
| Quote: |
On a blue background, the caricaturized version of journalist and writer K�re Bluitgen, wearing a turban with the proverbial orange dropping into it, with the inscription "Publicity stunt". In his hand is a child's stick drawing of Muhammad. The proverb "an orange in the turban" is a Danish expression (originating in the play Aladdin by Danish poet and playwright Adam Gottlob Oehlenschl�ger) meaning "a stroke of luck": here, the added publicity for his book.
|
link |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kimbop
Joined: 31 Mar 2008
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 07, 2010 10:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Big_Bird wrote: |
I agree that people shouldn't be cowed and bullied into silence. But do somethings really need to be said?
|
So, we can;t say the truth? because crazy people might kill 106 muslims in faraway dangerous autocracies?
| Quote: |
| Why does the world need a picture of Mohammed with a bomb in his turban? |
because islam NEEDS change. Mohammed cartoons are permitted in the free world, so get used to it. If you don't like it, don't frequent that gallery, and tell your congressman/MP to vote against its funding.
Or you can just kill them.
| Quote: |
| Did this need for Rose to mock Mohammed outweigh the need for 106 people to live |
Yes. But very afraid muslims shouldn't have killed 106 people. The problem is killing because of adherence; not cartoons. Next time a cartoon is drawn, hopefully only 53 people will die at the hands of psychopaths, cutting the # in half. And fewer the next year. This is progress.
Or we can submit to the demands of islamofacsists.
| Quote: |
Something are worth fighting for, sure. Was this one of them?
Are the benefits in this case outweighed by the carnage and problems it has so far wrought? Maybe they are. But nothing I've yet read has convinced me, though Fox made a good attempt. |
Nearly all of the "carnage" and deaths occured in the muslim world, which the west really doesn't care about. There were some bearded screamers in London and Copenhagen for a few days however, so I guess that cost the local police forces a bit in overtime.
My point is, Muslims rioted mostly in the mooslim world. The civilized world found this rather puzzling, and ran to goolgle and typed in "mohammed cartoons".
We really don't care if muslims are offended. But I hope that their "taking offence" dwindles. Let me ask you a question, Big bird: do you agree that it's absolutely wrong to kill someone for drawing a mohammed cartoon? You say yes? then the problem is psychotic killers; not cartoons. Case closed.
Was it worth it? Yes. The ME will be a more peaceful, happy place when they realize that their traditions are false and can be mocked. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 07, 2010 10:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
Gopher wrote:
| Quote: |
| And from what I have seen the Dutch press has no concept whatsoever of this. Dangling people's faults and shortcomings before them, ridiculing their dark side, and insulting their god is no way to go about this, Kuros. |
Yes, it's not likely that any American evangelical was prompted to reconsider his beliefs by seeing the Hustler parody that I posted earlier, the one about Falwell banging his mother in an outhouse. It probably provided a lot of merriment for Larry Flynt's oddball demographic of left-leaning rednecks, but almost certainly did nothing to advance the liberal agenda against the Religious Right. (The famous court case about the cartoon did that, but that's not the same thing as saying the cartoon itself had an effect.)
That said, no one should be killed, or even just censored, for publishing either the Danish cartoons or the Hustler satire. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NovaKart
Joined: 18 Nov 2009
Location: Iraq
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 07, 2010 10:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
For some classier pictures of the Prophet:
http://www.godweb.org/mohammedpaintings.htm
Which has some Persian and Central Asian illustrated mauscript pictures.
And
http://wapedia.mobi/en/Depictions_of_Muhammad
Which has some nice pictures of him. The ones on the bottom aren't so nice though, depicting him in Dante's Inferno, but most are from Muslim sources. And he's also on the Supreme Court building in D.C. carrying a sword along with a bunch of other people. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NovaKart
Joined: 18 Nov 2009
Location: Iraq
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 07, 2010 10:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ultimately I think the extreme Muslims are bound to get pissed off and it can't really be helped. But honestly, if I was in charge of a publication I would probably make the decision against publishing it. I wouldn't want to put people's lives at risk. I know this is caving in to the fundamentalists. But if someone dies should I tell their family that he/she died for free speech? Will that make them feel better? I know the responsibility for their death lies with the terrorist who killed them. But, if I can prevent it from happening I would rather do that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kimbop
Joined: 31 Mar 2008
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 07, 2010 11:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
Dangling people's faults and shortcomings before them, ridiculing their dark side, and insulting their god is no way to go about this, Kuros. "Free speech" may give us the right to be stupid, offensive, and antagonistic, and most seem to take advantage of these rights. But that does not mean that those who do this do not remain utter morons and, in my view, fully deserving that which they consciously provoke. |
C'mon Gopher, you're capable of so much better! I will "dangle" Mao's "faults and shortcomings" right in front of his ancestors' noses! Stalin killed most of my great-grand-relatives, and I will "insult his god" (communism) and "consciously provoke" it to the end! Bund deutscher Arbeiterjugend adhered to something more sinister, and thank allah that our grandfathers put a stop to it! All of these are wrong wrong wrong and if I am "fully deserving" of exposing the reality of islam, so be it.
The only difference is, mOslems are willing to kill to protect the pride of their tradition/political ideology, are awash in oil money, and there are 1.5 billion of them. But facts remain: Stalin, Communism, Fascism, Maoism, islam, etc are inherently evil, but the only difference is: millions of poverty stricken muslims have been brainwashed in madrasses and are a little more difficult to crack.
your choices are clear: Hope for and encourage a peaceful, prosperous middle east. Or submit to madness. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 07, 2010 11:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
I will "dangle" Mao's "faults and shortcomings" right in front of his ancestors' noses! Stalin killed most of my great-grand-relatives, and I will "insult his god" (communism) and "consciously provoke" it to the end! Bund deutscher Arbeiterjugend adhered to something more sinister, and thank allah that our grandfathers put a stop to it! All of these are wrong wrong wrong and if I am "fully deserving" of exposing the reality of islam, so be it.
|
So when Nixon visited China in '72, do you think it would have done a lot to win public opinion over to the American camp if he had gotten up in front of an audience and said "Oh by the way, your beloved Chairman is actually a senile old mass murderer?" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Marc Ravalomanana
Joined: 15 May 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| 0% of the blame is held by the cartoonist, and 100% of the blame is held by the Muslim groups that acted upon their outrage. And I'd say the same thing if any other religion were involved. The cartoonist isn't the one attacking people, or the one suicide bombing. The worst thing we can do in the West is to hold ourselves responsible in any way for the actions of extremists, or accommodate them in any way. No one who is unable to control their passions has a place in civilized society. |
My question wasn't who is responsible for the violence. My question was "was it worth it?" |
The question assumes that the cartoons are responsible for the violence, does it not? How else would the question make sense?
So, to point out that the blood is entirely on the hands of the madmen who would kill those who slander their prophet, I think, is apt. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Adventurer
Joined: 28 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| On the other hand wrote: |
Gopher wrote:
| Quote: |
| And from what I have seen the Dutch press has no concept whatsoever of this. Dangling people's faults and shortcomings before them, ridiculing their dark side, and insulting their god is no way to go about this, Kuros. |
Yes, it's not likely that any American evangelical was prompted to reconsider his beliefs by seeing the Hustler parody that I posted earlier, the one about Falwell banging his mother in an outhouse. It probably provided a lot of merriment for Larry Flynt's oddball demographic of left-leaning rednecks, but almost certainly did nothing to advance the liberal agenda against the Religious Right. (The famous court case about the cartoon did that, but that's not the same thing as saying the cartoon itself had an effect.)
That said, no one should be killed, or even just censored, for publishing either the Danish cartoons or the Hustler satire. |
Again, I agree with you folks. I mean if I said the f word to Gopher, and then he punched me, he would have possibly committed a felony, but I wouldn't have done something smart. I am making a point. When Caravallo Cosimo, who actually respects Jesus and Catholicsm, commissioned a chocolate Jesus he received death threats. No, he didn't get death threats from Somalis or Egyptians. Yes, I think it's more likely you will get that, percentage wise, from people of the Muslim faith, and I agree with the poster that more Muslims need to be cool it and chill out.
That said, provoking them is not the best way to reform people. It's not a way of having a dialogue.
For example, suppose person x has problems, and I tell him, "You know you're (choice swear word) up and need to change this and that", he won't respond kindly to that. Would many people respond in a very bad way at say trashing a certain choice religious figure? Would many Sikhs do that? Would some Christians do that? Yes. You are also more likely to see a violent reaction to that amongst American Christians probably than British Christians who don't attend church services. Basically, the authors knows there are over-religiously folks who wouldn't like that and might react harshly. Yet, they went ahead with it.
I voted "I am not sure" because:
1)I feel bad for the guys who share the same name as the artist.
2)I feel bad for the Danes who suffered financially for this.
3)In the future, we may have people from the said faith eventually simmering down after dealing with conflict and people disagreeing with the faith, which is part of life.
There is a better way to get your point across that you don't agree with someone's religion or are concerned by the behavior of some of its followers. Insulting all of them is not going to help matters, now is it? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Adventurer
Joined: 28 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Marc Ravalomanana wrote: |
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| 0% of the blame is held by the cartoonist, and 100% of the blame is held by the Muslim groups that acted upon their outrage. And I'd say the same thing if any other religion were involved. The cartoonist isn't the one attacking people, or the one suicide bombing. The worst thing we can do in the West is to hold ourselves responsible in any way for the actions of extremists, or accommodate them in any way. No one who is unable to control their passions has a place in civilized society. |
My question wasn't who is responsible for the violence. My question was "was it worth it?" |
The question assumes that the cartoons are responsible for the violence, does it not? How else would the question make sense?
So, to point out that the blood is entirely on the hands of the madmen who would kill those who slander their prophet, I think, is apt. |
Again, if I insult you and you punch me, is it your fault you have a felony and get arrested if I don't hit you back? Yes. What about your actions in the situation. People will say that's like saying a woman wearing a very short skirt is at fault for getting raped. I would disagree. If you confront someone you are very often likely to get into a fight. I am sure people can understand that. These people were confronting believers of a certain faith en masse without distinction. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bigverne
Joined: 12 May 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| When I hear of crazy Xtians shooting doctors, I do not think of Jesus holding a pistol. |
But when you of Muslims engaging in acts of terrorism, and then using the Koran and the example of Mohammed to justify those actions, one may indeed think of Mohammed ordering the beheading of the Jews of Kaybar or the raiding of a caravan and the rape of captured slave women. The role models presented by Jesus of Nazareth, and that of Mohammed are poles apart. Thus, the image of Mohammed holding a blade dripping with blood (as one of the cartoons did), or engaging in any number of unseemly deeds is not so far removed from the truth. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
young_clinton
Joined: 09 Sep 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 07, 2010 1:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Given the number of deaths of innocent people because of the cartoons. I don't think the cartoons were worth it.
Last edited by young_clinton on Thu Jan 07, 2010 9:02 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
