|
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 7:59 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
This is stupidity.
I am for dealing with problems directly and effectively. These cartoons, and this chest-thumping about deliberately provocative "free speech" does nothing to deal with the problem you claim you are interested in addressing. It is a stupid, stupid way to go about it.
I am through arguing this point here. Say what you will. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Kimbop
Joined: 31 Mar 2008
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 07, 2010 8:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
I am for dealing with problems directly and effectively. These cartoons, and this chest-thumping about deliberately provocative "free speech" does nothing to..
|
Respectfully, your way of "dealing with problems" is to run away. To capitulate. Moral relativism does NOT address the root problem : *
| Gopher wrote: |
deal with the problem you claim you are interested in addressing. |
I'm more of a fan of the truth than I am of free speech.
I think this is where we differ: you seem to think that the Jutland Post printing cartoons is a problem. It's not. There's nothing to resolve here.
*The re-action is the problem. The root problem. The relict of a retarded (and I mean 'held back') civilization. This is the problem that needs correcting. Please acknowledge this. Together, let's convince these muslims to not get angry because of pink socks. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
geldedgoat
Joined: 05 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 07, 2010 11:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kimbop wrote: |
| blackjack wrote: |
Yeah I know it was a poor analogy, but to continue with yours, while retraining it I don't wear pink socks for the purpose of annoying it. |
No, you wear pink because you're hosting the "Pink Color Fanclub and Flamingo Appreciation Society" Annual Get-Together at your estate, and you have no time for crazy dogs. (Or perhaps you wear your pink socks for whatever darn reason you want. It doesn matter: you are the master.) |
That analogy hurts your case more than it helps.
Is the owner at fault for not properly restraining the one vicious dog? Yes. Is the host of the "Pink Color Fanclub and Flamingo Appreciation Society" Annual Get-Together being careless and negligent by inviting a large group of pink-wearing fellows knowing how the dog will react? Yes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Adventurer
Joined: 28 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 08, 2010 12:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
Absolute. All kinds of dogs, Kimbop.
If you play with fire, and the fire burns you, it is not really the fire's fault -- especially if you are an adult and should know better.
Sure, you certainly have the right to play with fire all you like. But please do not whine about it when it burns you. |
Gopher, I agree with the sentiment. If you know you are bound to rile up certain people by doing a certain something and then they get riled up, and your country has problems as a result of it, then you're not being very responsible.
I do understand that religion can sometimes lead people to behave in what may appear to be a retarded manner in the eyes of many of us people.
I understand people want certain changes in the Middle East and what not. I do, as well. I am not sure provoking them is the best method to do so. It can work in the long-run, but I don't think it's the most reponsible thing to do.
It's understandable the cartoonists may have wanted people to accept by the force of the pen what they find offensive. Is it the best way to deal with things? I am not so sure. I think eventually fanaticism will not win in the end. It will be defeated. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 08, 2010 1:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Adventurer wrote: |
| I do understand that religion can sometimes lead people to behave in what may appear to be a retarded manner in the eyes of many of us people. |
We're not talking about a retarded manner here, we're talking about a violently criminal manner. Let's call it what it is: violent crime.
| Adventurer wrote: |
| It's understandable the cartoonists may have wanted people to accept by the force of the pen what they find offensive. Is it the best way to deal with things? I am not so sure. I think eventually fanaticism will not win in the end. It will be defeated. |
These people have to get used to seeing things in print that they find offensive without harming others as a result. We can look at these people in one of two ways:
1) Rational human beings who can be treated as equals, but must also be held responsible for their own actions.
2) Dangerous animals that cannot control themselves and thus cannot be held responsible for their own actions.
Some people in this thread have clearly advocated #2 is the appropriate viewpoint. So far, I'm sticking with #1, which leaves the Danish Cartoonist 100% blameless. The only people who were irresponsible here were the Muslims who behaved poorly. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blackjack
Joined: 04 Jan 2006
Location: anyang
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 08, 2010 5:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| Adventurer wrote: |
| I do understand that religion can sometimes lead people to behave in what may appear to be a retarded manner in the eyes of many of us people. |
We're not talking about a retarded manner here, we're talking about a violently criminal manner. Let's call it what it is: violent crime.
| Adventurer wrote: |
| It's understandable the cartoonists may have wanted people to accept by the force of the pen what they find offensive. Is it the best way to deal with things? I am not so sure. I think eventually fanaticism will not win in the end. It will be defeated. |
These people have to get used to seeing things in print that they find offensive without harming others as a result. We can look at these people in one of two ways:
1) Rational human beings who can be treated as equals, but must also be held responsible for their own actions.
2) Dangerous animals that cannot control themselves and thus cannot be held responsible for their own actions.
Some people in this thread have clearly advocated #2 is the appropriate viewpoint. So far, I'm sticking with #1, which leaves the Danish Cartoonist 100% blameless. The only people who were irresponsible here were the Muslims who behaved poorly. |
Don't think it is as black and white there mate.
Option 1 Rational human beings. They have been indoctrinated/brainwashed into a false religion/interpretation (don't want to get into that argument). How rational can you say a person is, when they are willing to blow themselves up.
Option 2 Dangerous animals that cannot control themselves come on now you are just using overly emotional language. Lay off the newer Dawkins.
There is a gray area between pushing boundaries and purposely doing something to piss someone off. Publishing those cartoons was like publishing cartoons of someone raping your mother/grandmother/father, abusing your little sister/brother (not your as in you but your as in someones). Couple that with uneducated, poverty stricken, brainwashed people and well you are asking for problems.
Do I understand why they care? No. But I don't have faith/belief whatever.
They did it to get a reaction and they got a reaction. I don't pick fights with that drunk angry dude at the end of the bar... (okay enough analogies) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 08, 2010 5:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| blackjack wrote: |
| There is a gray area between pushing boundaries and purposely doing something to piss someone off. |
Yes, there is. There is not, however, a gray area between being able to restrain yourself from enacting violent crime in the face of something that angers you, or being unable. You either can do so, or you cannot. If you can, then the person who angered you cannot be held accountable for your crime. If you cannot, then you're little better than a violent animal, and frankly need to be kept away from society for the safety of everyone.
I think we both know Muslims -- like all other human beings who don't suffer from chemical or biological impairment -- possess self control. They just chose not to exercise it in this case, and people died because of their actions.
| blackjack wrote: |
| Publishing those cartoons was like publishing cartoons of someone raping your mother/grandmother/father, abusing your little sister/brother (not your as in you but your as in someones). |
No one should respond to such things with violence. Anyone who does respond to such a thing with violence is 100% responsible for said violence (or, conversely, a violent animal who can't control themselves).
| blackjack wrote: |
| Couple that with uneducated, poverty stricken, brainwashed people and well you are asking for problems. |
I'm not going to give people an out on murdering other people simply because they're poor and religious. Muslims should be held to the same standard as the rest of the world.
| blackjack wrote: |
| They did it to get a reaction and they got a reaction. I don't pick fights with that drunk angry dude at the end of the bar... (okay enough analogies) |
It's very telling that every analogy involves likening a Muslim to something detestable. A rabid dog. A drunk guy at the bar. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blackjack
Joined: 04 Jan 2006
Location: anyang
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 08, 2010 6:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| blackjack wrote: |
| There is a gray area between pushing boundaries and purposely doing something to piss someone off. |
Yes, there is. There is not, however, a gray area between being able to restrain yourself from enacting violent crime in the face of something that angers you, or being unable. You either can do so, or you cannot. If you can, then the person who angered you cannot be held accountable for your crime. If you cannot, then you're little better than a violent animal, and frankly need to be kept away from society for the safety of everyone.
I think we both know Muslims -- like all other human beings who don't suffer from chemical or biological impairment -- possess self control. They just chose not to exercise it in this case, and people died because of their actions.
| blackjack wrote: |
| Publishing those cartoons was like publishing cartoons of someone raping your mother/grandmother/father, abusing your little sister/brother (not your as in you but your as in someones). |
No one should respond to such things with violence. Anyone who does respond to such a thing with violence is 100% responsible for said violence (or, conversely, a violent animal who can't control themselves).
| blackjack wrote: |
| Couple that with uneducated, poverty stricken, brainwashed people and well you are asking for problems. |
I'm not going to give people an out on murdering other people simply because they're poor and religious. Muslims should be held to the same standard as the rest of the world.
| blackjack wrote: |
| They did it to get a reaction and they got a reaction. I don't pick fights with that drunk angry dude at the end of the bar... (okay enough analogies) |
It's very telling that every analogy involves likening a Muslim to something detestable. A rabid dog. A drunk guy at the bar. |
The thing is I kinda agree with you. However I think there is a time for baby steps. There is no excuse for violence, people should be held accountable for there actions, but you raise someone from a young age/you brainwash someone you can get them to do some really bad things. To bring them around you don't insult the core of their beliefs, you show them a better way, you educate them, you give them other options and this takes time |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 08, 2010 6:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| blackjack wrote: |
| To bring them around you don't insult the core of their beliefs, you show them a better way, you educate them, you give them other options and this takes time |
With regards to this, I'm of the school of thought that if we limit ourselves in this manner, the problem becomes worse rather than better. Indulging Muslims in this regard will cause them to expect indulgence rather than to learn to live without indulgence. Part of the reason that this provoked the response it did is that we don't do it often enough, frankly. We constrain ourselves in atypical fashion for fear of enraging Muslims.
One might say, "What reason is there to ever mock Islam in this way?" but it's part of our society to mock things in such a fashion. As I mentioned earlier in the thread, there was an article in the Onion wherein Jesus shot up an abortion clinic, and this was in a fairly mainstream humor publication. Christianity is mocked regularly in our culture. Many things which are an important part of people's lives are mocked. Mocking what some find sacred is part of our culture; we can't expect people not to do it. We can't, and shouldn't, go out of our way to avoid offending Muslims.
The real problem here is that people are blaming this guy, or telling him he deserved what he got. Even quite a few people on this board are at least boarderline laying blame on him. Terrorism is succeeding in that regard; people are scared to speak out, and worse, unsupportive of those who do. "You almost got killed? You had it coming. Muslims killed people? It's your fault." That's what worries me most here. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kimbop
Joined: 31 Mar 2008
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 08, 2010 7:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
With regards to this, I'm of the school of thought that if we limit ourselves in this manner, the problem becomes worse rather than better. Indulging Muslims in this regard will cause them to expect indulgence rather than to learn to live without indulgence. Part of the reason that this provoked the response it did is that we don't do it often enough, frankly. We constrain ourselves in atypical fashion for fear of enraging Muslims.
One might say, "What reason is there to ever mock Islam in this way?" but it's part of our society to mock things in such a fashion. As I mentioned earlier in the thread, there was an article in the Onion wherein Jesus shot up an abortion clinic, and this was in a fairly mainstream humor publication. Christianity is mocked regularly in our culture. Many things which are an important part of people's lives are mocked. Mocking what some find sacred is part of our culture; we can't expect people not to do it. We can't, and shouldn't, go out of our way to avoid offending Muslims.
The real problem here is that people are blaming this guy, or telling him he deserved what he got. Even quite a few people on this board are at least boarderline laying blame on him. Terrorism is succeeding in that regard; people are scared to speak out, and worse, unsupportive of those who do. "You almost got killed? You had it coming. Muslims killed people? It's your fault." That's what worries me most here. |
Perfect. A great thread capper. Logical, concise, succinct. Excellent post. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Adventurer
Joined: 28 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 08, 2010 10:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| As the other poster said, it's a grey area. If you intentionally provoke people by mocking their religion and single them out, and know there are possible consequences for it, then you are responsible for what you did to some extent. You reap what you sow in both cases. I used the analogy of Protestants in the past marching into Catholic neighborhoods in Ireland. They felt the Catholics should simply except it. They knew they could possibly get a violent reaction, but went ahead anyway. I understand wanting to mock religion and a certain religious figure, but in reality some people will respond with extreme anger. I am certain people doing such things know it provokes people. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 08, 2010 8:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Adventurer wrote: |
| As the other poster said, it's a grey area. If you intentionally provoke people by mocking their religion and single them out, and know there are possible consequences for it, then you are responsible for what you did to some extent. |
No, you aren't. This is especially true when your exercise of free speech was a criticism of said type of behavior. It's not like he gave a rousing pro-Muslim violence speech that made people get excited. Other people did that after he criticized their violence.
Muslims need to start taking 100% of the responsibility for their own actions. I know it's popular in the West to try to see both sides, but in this case one of the sides is a group of people who killed others over a cartoon, and mind you they killed others who didn't even draw the cartoon.
| Adventurer wrote: |
| You reap what you sow in both cases. |
He sowed social criticism. What was reaped was criminal violence. Clearly, it's not a case of reaping what you sow. It's a case of religious lunatics committing crimes.
| Adventurer wrote: |
| I used the analogy of Protestants in the past marching into Catholic neighborhoods in Ireland. They felt the Catholics should simply except it. |
The Catholics don't necessarily need to simply accept it, but responding with violence is unacceptable. A counter-march would have been a much more reasonable response.
| Adventurer wrote: |
| I understand wanting to mock religion and a certain religious figure, but in reality some people will respond with extreme anger. |
And if those people cannot control said anger, they're a threat to society and need to be incarcerated for everyone's good. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Marc Ravalomanana
Joined: 15 May 2007
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 09, 2010 9:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Adventurer wrote: |
| I understand wanting to mock religion and a certain religious figure, but in reality some people will respond with extreme anger. I am certain people doing such things know it provokes people. |
Stop making excuses for the Muslim's violent behavior. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thecount
Joined: 10 Nov 2009
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 09, 2010 9:55 pm Post subject: Re: Danish Cartoon: Was it Worth It? |
|
|
| Big_Bird wrote: |
That's more than a hundred and six dead, and probably scores more injured on top. And 87 men living under police protection. And likely more death and injury in the future. For what? To prove a point? |
The Dane proved no point by producing a drawing. The only thing that could validate that cartoon...is what has happened. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
djsmnc
Joined: 20 Jan 2003
Location: Dave's ESL Cafe
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 09, 2010 10:25 pm Post subject: Re: Danish Cartoon: Was it Worth It? |
|
|
| thecount wrote: |
| Big_Bird wrote: |
That's more than a hundred and six dead, and probably scores more injured on top. And 87 men living under police protection. And likely more death and injury in the future. For what? To prove a point? |
The Dane proved no point by producing a drawing. The only thing that could validate that cartoon...is what has happened. |
Touche! The cartoon is mere representation whereas the aftermath is evidence. The media is NOT the message |
|
| 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
