Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Post a Muhammed Cartoon!

Page 3 of 4 [ 51 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

thomas81
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 May 2012
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,147
Location: County Down, Northern Ireland

29 Jan 2015, 1:18 pm

0_equals_true wrote:
A freedom of speech issue would be, the French government banning Holocaust denial, or even Charlie Hebdo.

Charlie Hebdo firing a particular cartoonist, is not a freedom of speech issue. It is an employment/editorial issue.

The fact the several European countries ban Holocaust denial is hypocritical. No, I'm not a Holocaust denier nor do I like them.


Isn't the fact that the BBC is license payer funded rather pertinent here? The BBC has a rather different duty to its consumers than other companies because we are obliged to pay for the BBC's services at point of purchasing a television. We have a right to listen to all views of BBC entertainers on the BBC payroll because we are paying for them.


_________________
Being 'normal' is over rated.

My deviant art profile


0_equals_true
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2007
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,038
Location: London

29 Jan 2015, 1:30 pm

thomas81 wrote:
Isn't the fact that the BBC is license payer funded rather pertinent here? The BBC has a rather different duty to its consumers than other companies because we are obliged to pay for the BBC's services at point of purchasing a television. We have a right to listen to all views of BBC entertainers on the BBC payroll because we are paying for them.


I take you point, but part of the Beeb remit is it can't be a mouthpiece for the government.

It has to be impartial. There are two types of impartial. One where you don't take sides at all. Another where if you question one side, you must allow the opportunity to question the other. There has to be an attempt to allow different position to appear.

None of the Beebs remit actually changes censorship, and actually being a publicly funded organisation, is exactly why it has to make editorial decision about content.

Your last point about paying them, is exactly the point. If you fire someone you are no longer paying for them, and like it or not the UK is not a nation of thomas81s so pleasing all the people all the time impossible.

Boyle isn't actually on the BBC payroll that isn't how these entertainers are usually employed. Programs are commissioned, either by the Beeb or a production company, the individual or the production company is contracted. Yes, often to the get compensation for severance too.



thomas81
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 May 2012
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,147
Location: County Down, Northern Ireland

29 Jan 2015, 1:45 pm

0_equals_true wrote:
thomas81 wrote:
Isn't the fact that the BBC is license payer funded rather pertinent here? The BBC has a rather different duty to its consumers than other companies because we are obliged to pay for the BBC's services at point of purchasing a television. We have a right to listen to all views of BBC entertainers on the BBC payroll because we are paying for them.


I take you point, but part of the Beeb remit is it can't be a mouthpiece for the government.

It has to be impartial. There are two types of impartial. One where you don't take sides at all. Another where if you question one side, you must allow the opportunity to question the other. There has to be an attempt to allow different position to appear.

None of the Beebs remit actually changes censorship, and actually being a publicly funded organisation, is exactly why it has to make editorial decision about content.

Your last point about paying them, is exactly the point. If you fire someone you are no longer paying for them, and like it or not the UK is not a nation of thomas81s so pleasing all the people all the time impossible.

Boyle isn't actually on the BBC payroll that isn't how these entertainers are usually employed. Programs are commissioned, either by the Beeb or a production company, the individual or the production company is contracted. Yes, often to the get compensation for severance too.


Sorry, but still no sale. If the BBC wants to distance itself from Boyles views a simple disclaimer stating that his views don't necessarilly represent the views of the BBC management is all that is necessary. If it is post watershed then I don't see the problem. Treat us like adults and let us guage for ourselves whether to be offended or not. The UK like France represents a diverse range of views and political opinions and I think as public funders we have a right to listen to all content, no matter how some people might find it detestable. It still ties in with the theme about free speech. Whether or not Boyle is a BBC employee or not (he was a regular fixture on the show "Mock the Week") the BBC has no right to engineer the content that reaches us to suit a specific narrative, especially when we pay for it and have no choice in the matter.


_________________
Being 'normal' is over rated.

My deviant art profile


Nebogipfel
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2014
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 509

29 Jan 2015, 2:32 pm

Quote:
The ideas of the "Age of Enlightenment" are some of The West's proudest achievements. But what if other societies see them more akin to a virus than a boon? Can human values be internationalized? Should they?


The Enlightenment Virus.



0_equals_true
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2007
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,038
Location: London

29 Jan 2015, 6:16 pm

thomas81 wrote:
Sorry, but still no sale. If the BBC wants to distance itself from Boyles views a simple disclaimer stating that his views don't necessarilly represent the views of the BBC management is all that is necessary.


It is not a sale.

The question was whether it is to do with freedom of speech. It isn't, there is no legal capacity requiring to beeb to provide a voice for Boyle. It has nothing to do with freedom of speech. Full stop.

If you want to pursue legal action, please do. You would learn a lot on the context of rights like speech and expression, which is not law of the institution, but law of land.

If the Beeb wants to distance itself from Boyle, it distances itself Boyle. Distancing is not a restriction. It is as simple as that. It is also not part of their charter to provide a voice to Boyle, and even if there was, it still would not be to do with freedom of speech.

Boyle doesn't have a special pass. There are literally hundred of comedian and entertainers waiting for their shot.

The Beeb itself receives a lot of feedback, so why should they consider you views on Boyle over all others?

So you argument of the Beeb, impeding Boyle's freedom is speech is invalid, unless you have evidence they are tried to silence him now he is a free agent (he was always a free agent).

Boyle is very successful, his shows are sell out, the idea that the Beeb somehow restricted his voice is bollocks.

Even if Boyle suffered a devastating blow to his popularity, he still has freedom of speech.

Freedom of speech, not freedom to be heard.



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,952
Location:      

29 Jan 2015, 7:05 pm

I'd like to see a cartoon of Mohammed with a Charlie Chaplin mustache.


_________________
The mere fact that science may not yet adequately explain an object, event, or experience does not mean the immediate explanation should automatically default to a conspiratorial, extraterrestrial, paranormal, or supernatural cause.


Kurgan
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Apr 2012
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,132
Location: Scandinavia

31 Jan 2015, 1:26 pm

Jono wrote:
Please learn what your fallacies mean before you accuse me of making them. Atheism is not a set of beliefs, it is simply an absence of belief in gods, that's it.


Which doesn't mean that you can't abuse it to justify your actions.

Quote:
Jim Jones and his "church" may not of believed in gods but that does not mean that the Jonestown Massacre was in the name of a lack of belief in gods, in the same way that both Stalin and Hitler had moustaches but it wasn't because of their moustaches that they were ruthless dictators.


Jonestown was founded in the name of atheism, and the USSR was an atheist (as in not secular) country. Lenin executed nearly 10,000 randomly chosen priests, nuns, and monks simply to prove a point to the church, in the name of atheism.

Quote:
The difference in the case of Charlie Hebdo was that the massacre happened specifically because of them mocking Muhammed, the Islamic Prophet, not merely the fact that the perpetrators were muslims.

[/quote]

If they didn't have the Qur'an, they'd still have found another reason to attack the Charlie Hebdo magazine. Notice how an attempt to ban religion in Afganistan in the 1980s did not in any way make the country more peaceful (on the contrary, actually).


_________________
“He who controls the spice controls the universe.”


AspieOtaku
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Feb 2012
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,051
Location: San Jose

31 Jan 2015, 3:10 pm

Image


_________________
Your Aspie score is 193 of 200
Your neurotypical score is 40 of 200
You are very likely an aspie
No matter where I go I will always be a Gaijin even at home. Like Anime? https://kissanime.to/AnimeList


Jono
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,677
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa

03 Feb 2015, 9:35 am

Kurgan wrote:
Jono wrote:
Please learn what your fallacies mean before you accuse me of making them. Atheism is not a set of beliefs, it is simply an absence of belief in gods, that's it.


Which doesn't mean that you can't abuse it to justify your actions.


Speaking of fallacies, perhaps you should look up what a false equivalence means because this is a prime example of that:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence

Kurgan wrote:
Quote:
Jim Jones and his "church" may not of believed in gods but that does not mean that the Jonestown Massacre was in the name of a lack of belief in gods, in the same way that both Stalin and Hitler had moustaches but it wasn't because of their moustaches that they were ruthless dictators.


Jonestown was founded in the name of atheism, and the USSR was an atheist (as in not secular) country. Lenin executed nearly 10,000 randomly chosen priests, nuns, and monks simply to prove a point to the church, in the name of atheism.


The Jonestown cult was actually based on Christian communism, not atheism. So it had a christian element in it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peoples_Temple

Also, Lenin did not kill in the name of atheism, he killed in the name of socialism/communism.

Kurgan wrote:
Quote:
The difference in the case of Charlie Hebdo was that the massacre happened specifically because of them mocking Muhammed, the Islamic Prophet, not merely the fact that the perpetrators were muslims.


If they didn't have the Qur'an, they'd still have found another reason to attack the Charlie Hebdo magazine. Notice how an attempt to ban religion in Afganistan in the 1980s did not in any way make the country more peaceful (on the contrary, actually).


Orly? Charlie Hebdo was merely a magazine that printed political and satirical cartoons, so if it was not because of their cartoons that made them a target, then what was the "real reason" for the massacre.

I'm under no delusions that world would become peaceful if we got rid of all religions (I invite you to tell me where I said that). However, that doesn't mean that religions have not been responsible for a lot of carnage throughout history.



Rubensteiner
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 21 Nov 2012
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 26
Location: Brazil

03 Feb 2015, 10:23 am

thomas81 wrote:
I don't have a muhammed cartoon, however I did see this one and i thought it was appropriate to this thread.

Image


I agree with thomas81!

What is the point in posting a Muhammed Cartoon? Who we will help by doing this?



AspieOtaku
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Feb 2012
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,051
Location: San Jose

04 Feb 2015, 1:32 am

Rubensteiner wrote:
thomas81 wrote:
I don't have a muhammed cartoon, however I did see this one and i thought it was appropriate to this thread.

Image


I agree with thomas81!

What is the point in posting a Muhammed Cartoon? Who we will help by doing this?
So does that mean your against free speech and expression? Not everyone is a Muslim but if your against freedom of expression then that may mean you support the ideas of putting those who do not follow Islam to death and that those who mock because they dont believe to death as well! IIRC in Islam it is taught that killing another is a sin and includes suicide bombings as well those who do not believe in Christianity or Hinduism its okay to mock them but not Islam? I see hypocracy afoot!


_________________
Your Aspie score is 193 of 200
Your neurotypical score is 40 of 200
You are very likely an aspie
No matter where I go I will always be a Gaijin even at home. Like Anime? https://kissanime.to/AnimeList


AspieOtaku
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Feb 2012
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,051
Location: San Jose

04 Feb 2015, 1:36 am


_________________
Your Aspie score is 193 of 200
Your neurotypical score is 40 of 200
You are very likely an aspie
No matter where I go I will always be a Gaijin even at home. Like Anime? https://kissanime.to/AnimeList


AspE
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,114

04 Feb 2015, 2:16 am

Here is a picture of Mohammed, the prophet of the Muslim religion :arrow: :skull:
(yeah, he's been dead awhile)



funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 41
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 34,219
Location: Right over your left shoulder

04 Feb 2015, 10:09 am

AspieOtaku wrote:
Rubensteiner wrote:
thomas81 wrote:
I don't have a muhammed cartoon, however I did see this one and i thought it was appropriate to this thread.

Image


I agree with thomas81!

What is the point in posting a Muhammed Cartoon? Who we will help by doing this?
So does that mean your against free speech and expression? Not everyone is a Muslim but if your against freedom of expression then that may mean you support the ideas of putting those who do not follow Islam to death and that those who mock because they dont believe to death as well! IIRC in Islam it is taught that killing another is a sin and includes suicide bombings as well those who do not believe in Christianity or Hinduism its okay to mock them but not Islam? I see hypocracy afoot!


All religions are fair game to mock, but, that doesn't mean any religions need mocked. Mocking Islam in front of an audience of non-Muslims isn't all that brave and doesn't really make any point.

Pointing out that you're not achieving anything doesn't even indicate that he opposes what you're doing. Just indicates that he thinks you're wasting time and effort.

If you're in favour of freedom of speech this means you support the notion that dissenting views should be tolerated. Do you really show your support for freedom of speech if you complain about dissenters interrupting the circle jerk?


_________________
The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.
If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing. —Malcolm X
Just a reminder: under international law, an occupying power has no right of self-defense, and those who are occupied have the right and duty to liberate themselves by any means possible.


Jono
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,677
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa

05 Feb 2015, 6:31 am

funeralxempire wrote:
AspieOtaku wrote:
Rubensteiner wrote:
thomas81 wrote:
I don't have a muhammed cartoon, however I did see this one and i thought it was appropriate to this thread.

Image


I agree with thomas81!

What is the point in posting a Muhammed Cartoon? Who we will help by doing this?
So does that mean your against free speech and expression? Not everyone is a Muslim but if your against freedom of expression then that may mean you support the ideas of putting those who do not follow Islam to death and that those who mock because they dont believe to death as well! IIRC in Islam it is taught that killing another is a sin and includes suicide bombings as well those who do not believe in Christianity or Hinduism its okay to mock them but not Islam? I see hypocracy afoot!


All religions are fair game to mock, but, that doesn't mean any religions need mocked. Mocking Islam in front of an audience of non-Muslims isn't all that brave and doesn't really make any point.

Pointing out that you're not achieving anything doesn't even indicate that he opposes what you're doing. Just indicates that he thinks you're wasting time and effort.

If you're in favour of freedom of speech this means you support the notion that dissenting views should be tolerated. Do you really show your support for freedom of speech if you complain about dissenters interrupting the circle jerk?


He's not taking away his freedom of speech by responding to him with his own own opinion. Just like Rubensteiner and thomas81 can use their freedom of speech to express their own opinions of the thread, he can also use his freedom of speech to respond to them with his own opinion. Tolerating dissenting views in the name of free speech does not mean that you have to agree with them.



funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 41
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 34,219
Location: Right over your left shoulder

05 Feb 2015, 10:02 am

Jono wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:

All religions are fair game to mock, but, that doesn't mean any religions need mocked. Mocking Islam in front of an audience of non-Muslims isn't all that brave and doesn't really make any point.

Pointing out that you're not achieving anything doesn't even indicate that he opposes what you're doing. Just indicates that he thinks you're wasting time and effort.

If you're in favour of freedom of speech this means you support the notion that dissenting views should be tolerated. Do you really show your support for freedom of speech if you complain about dissenters interrupting the circle jerk?


He's not taking away his freedom of speech by responding to him with his own own opinion. Just like Rubensteiner and thomas81 can use their freedom of speech to express their own opinions of the thread, he can also use his freedom of speech to respond to them with his own opinion. Tolerating dissenting views in the name of free speech does not mean that you have to agree with them.


I never said anyone was taking away anyone else's free speech. Nothing you've said really contradicts my post. :?

I said supporters of the concept of freedom of speech should be careful about appearing intent on silencing dissent. People should exchange and reciprocate ideas, but shaming and attempting to silence dissent (like has been occurring related to Je Suis Charlie) isn't consistent with free speech.

You don't have to agree with dissenting views, you do need to tolerate them.


_________________
The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.
If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing. —Malcolm X
Just a reminder: under international law, an occupying power has no right of self-defense, and those who are occupied have the right and duty to liberate themselves by any means possible.