26
   

Why aren't we talking about "Draw Muhammad Day?" May 20th

 
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  4  
Reply Fri 17 Sep, 2010 05:20 pm
@OCCOM BILL,
Quote:
Had a great number of cartoon satirists shown her same courage along with her; she wouldn't need to join the witness protection program now.


I believe this assertion has indeed been contradicted by the facts. Many other cartoonists did in fact make cartoons, and to the best of my knowledge, she still did join the witness protection program.

I would point out that the 'masses of resistors' theory is only that; a theory. It protects no one individual.

It's not that I don't agree with you in theory; this whole thing is wrong on the part of the religious haters. We should stand up to them. But intentionally stirring up **** isn't the same thing as 'standing up to them.'

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Sep, 2010 05:27 pm
@JTT,
Amazing... a semi-topic-relevant post by JTT. I think I’ll respond to the relevant portion in hopes it will encourage you.
JTT wrote:

Quote:
Had a great number of cartoon satirists shown her same courage along with her; she wouldn't need to join the witness protection program now.


Yeah, that would have made a huge difference, Bill. What medications are you taking?
? If 1,000 of her peers responded in kind; do you think the FBI would encourage them all to disappear?

JTT wrote:
From what I've read, she didn't join the or a witness protection program.
From what I've read; the only difference is the taxpayers aren't footing the bill.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Sep, 2010 05:37 pm
@OCCOM BILL,
Quote:
Molly spoke out... and she should be universally respected for it.


Well, I respect lots of folks for making brave, yet ultimately self-destructive decisions. It is a matter of pragmatism and prudence, no matter how many ideological heroes from the past you wish to dredge up.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Fri 17 Sep, 2010 08:48 pm
@OCCOM BILL,
Bill, it's always relevant to point out what a hypocrite you are. It lets new people know that largely, you're a pompous fraud only interested in making it appear that you care for others.

Quote:
If 1,000 of her peers responded in kind; do you think the FBI would encourage them all to disappear?


Disappearing isn't the issue. I think the choice was probably made by the lady herself. Adding 1,000 more people would only increase the size of the hit list, making it more, not less likely that someone would die.

Salman Rushdie disappeared and now he's back in circulation. Evidently, Ms Norris thinks that taking a long term view is best.

Did she actually get fatwaed by a "reputable" source?
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Sep, 2010 09:55 am
@JTT,
Who do you consider reputable, JTT?

Quote:
The Yemeni-American cleric Anwar al-Awlaki - the radical who's also been cited as inspiring the Fort Hood, Tex., massacre and the plot by two New Jersey men to kill U.S. soldiers - singled out artist Molly Norris as a "prime target," saying her "proper abode is Hellfire." Source
Irishk
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Sep, 2010 10:03 am
I think al-Awlaki said on his website that Ms. Norris and all who participated were placed on the 'hit list' (at least that's what some media are reporting), but here's what the New York Times had to say:

Quote:
In July, Anwar al-Awlaki, the radical Yemeni-American cleric who is accused of ties to Al Qaeda, said in a document published on the Internet that Ms. Norris “should be taken as a prime target of assassination,” according to the NEFA Foundation, a private group that monitors extremist Web sites, which translated the document.

Mr. Awlaki stated that Ms. Norris and other unnamed people in the United States and Europe “are expressing their hatred of the Messenger of Islam through ridicule.” In a controversial step, the Obama administration this year authorized the Central Intelligence Agency to kill Mr. Awlaki, who is in hiding.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/17/us/17cartoon.html?_r=1
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Sep, 2010 10:18 am
@OCCOM BILL,
OCCOM BILL wrote:

Get in his face and provoke him? She never stepped foot in the same room, nor even asked, let alone forced him to look at her cartoon.


That's not true. She intentionally published something on the internet that she knew, or should have known, would incite violence. She was protected by her First Amendment right to create and publish her viewpoint. Her FA right is not an international right. It's an American right granted to her by our Constitution. To say that it gives her the right to publish her viewpoint on a global platform and be free from recourse from anyone on the planet is specious.

I didn't participate in this thread when it came out last spring. In reading through it yesterday I saw this


OCCOM BILL wrote:

I know of no metric to measure, but can only assume that every exposure to depictions of the prophet will have an incremental desensitizing effect, even if infinitesimal.

Consider that even some of the most self-righteous southern racists eventually grew accustomed to sharing space with black people. Do you think they’d have made the same progress if Brown v. Board hadn’t shot down separate but equal? More exposure continues to result in more desensitization and acceptance.

I doubt anyone had any illusion about things changing over night based on one silly online protest (I stated as much in one of my first posts on this thread). But you have to start somewhere unless you’d rather just wait for 6 Billion people to be intimidated into incrementally accepting the tenets of Sharia Law.

I can’t end world hunger with my mouth (spreading awareness) or my wallet either, but I’ll continue to use both towards that end.



Who are you to decide that followers of one of the world's major religions need to be "desensitized"? Jesus, Bill, that's one of the most arrogant statements I've ever seen.

The right to insult and inflame is not the same as segregating blacks, denying rights to women, or spousal abuse. I know you think it is, but to equate the abuse of women and the segregation of blacks to exercising restraint on the web/media is ridiculous.
Thomas
 
  2  
Reply Sat 18 Sep, 2010 10:55 am
@JPB,
JPB wrote:
That's not true. She intentionally published something on the internet that she knew, or should have known, would incite violence.

JPB: If a woman you know got raped, and Occom Bill made the point that "she intentionally wore a mini-skirt that she knew, or should have known, would arouse drunken men", I bet it wouldn't take you a millisecond to put Bill in his place. And more power to you for that! How is this case any different?

JPB wrote:
Her FA right is not an international right. It's an American right granted to her by our Constitution.

This point doesn't work for two reasons:

1) So what? Molly Norris never demanded that foreign nations recognize her freedom of speech. All she's demanding is that she not be murdered in America---for exercising her First-Amendment rights, which you agree she has here.

2) Even aside of this, your argument fails, because the First Amendment is not the only legal document in the world protecting the freedom of speech. In particular, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights guarantees the "freedom of opinion and expression" (article 19), and explicitly mentions past infringements on the freedom of speech as a reason for its existence (preamble). Contrary to your suggestion, then, international law does recognize Molly Norris's right to draw that cartoon, and her employer's right to publish it.
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Sep, 2010 11:28 am
@JPB,
I really don't have a clue who the credible Fatwa issuers are, JPB. My only point was, was it just the ranting that went on in some far distant protest or had a "real" cleric spoken out, had a "real" fatwa been issued, a la Salman Rushdie.

I'm not suggesting that in the absence of a "real" fatwa, Molly's life was not still in danger.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Sep, 2010 11:31 am
@Irishk,
the Obama administration this year authorized the Central Terrorism Agency to ...
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Sep, 2010 11:40 am
@Thomas,
Quote:
JPB: If a woman you know got raped, and Occom Bill made the point that "she intentionally wore a mini-skirt that she knew, or should have known, would arouse drunken men", I bet it wouldn't take you a millisecond to put Bill in his place. And more power to you for that! How is this case any different?


This case is different because there are people in this world who have different values, who have a different take on how things should work. While it's easy to find fault with those from a western viewpoint, the fact remains that they exist.


Quote:

2) Even aside of this, your argument fails, because the First Amendment is not the only legal document in the world protecting the freedom of speech. In particular, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights guarantees the "freedom of opinion and expression" (article 19), and explicitly mentions past infringements on the freedom of speech as a reason for its existence (preamble). Contrary to your suggestion, then, international law does recognize Molly Norris's right to draw that cartoon, and her employer's right to publish it.


International law is a pick and choose set of situations, Thomas. The things that your countrymen were hung/imprisoned for are done routinely by others, with impunity.

International law does not extend into the realm of national law. If a country wants to establish that doing anything against their religion is a capital offense, that's their prerogative.
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Sep, 2010 12:42 pm
@Thomas,
Thomas wrote:


JPB wrote:
Her FA right is not an international right. It's an American right granted to her by our Constitution.

This point doesn't work for two reasons:

1) So what? Molly Norris never demanded that foreign nations recognize her freedom of speech. All she's demanding is that she not be murdered in America---for exercising her First-Amendment rights, which you agree she has here.

2) Even aside of this, your argument fails, because the First Amendment is not the only legal document in the world protecting the freedom of speech. In particular, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights guarantees the "freedom of opinion and expression" (article 19), and explicitly mentions past infringements on the freedom of speech as a reason for its existence (preamble). Contrary to your suggestion, then, international law does recognize Molly Norris's right to draw that cartoon, and her employer's right to publish it.


JTT responded to the second point. My response to the first point is that she knew this was a risk going in. It was a risk she was willing to take. Her country is defending her as best it can by assisting her in not being murdered in America (I assume there's been some assistance with her change of identity). It has also taken the extreme step of putting the nutcase who called for her assassination on it's own hit list and has allowed that information to be published.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 18 Sep, 2010 02:14 pm
@JPB,
Freedom of speech was neither our founding father's to give nor take away. They merely recognized it as one of humankind's inalienable rights. Do you actually disagree?
Or are you allowing your predisposition to cloud your judgment?
^^^You can probably overcome that predisposition by accepting this challenge:
I challenge anyone to provide a list of groups that should be considered off-limits to cartoon satirists. I have trouble believing any intelligent person's list will grow very long before they realize the error in their rationale. Any takers?
By the time you consider inclusions and exclusion; the error in your position will obvious.

JPB wrote:
Who are you to decide that followers of one of the world's major religions need to be "desensitized"? Jesus, Bill, that's one of the most arrogant statements I've ever seen.
Is it really? Arrogance is a relative handful of fundamentalist assholes demanding that 6 Billion people obey their demented doctrine on pain of death. Get some perspective. That relative handful of hateful idiots do indeed need to be desensitized, unless you think Death Threats against free speech are just peachy-keen.

JPB wrote:
The right to insult and inflame is not the same as segregating blacks, denying rights to women, or spousal abuse. I know you think it is, but to equate the abuse of women and the segregation of blacks to exercising restraint on the web/media is ridiculous.
Ridiculous is pretending a fundamentalist asshole's desire to superimpose tenets of Sharia Law over the entire planet's population is in any way reasonable.

A well behaved woman doesn't get beat.
A well behaved citizen of planet earth doesn't get murdered.
How is that comparison too difficult for you to understand?
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Sep, 2010 02:15 pm
@JTT,
JTT wrote:
This case is different because there are people in this world who have different values, who have a different take on how things should work. While it's easy to find fault with those from a western viewpoint, the fact remains that they exist.

JPB hadn't just made a general comment on moral relativism; she had made a specific point about international law. And as a point of international law, her statement was simply incorrect. Anwar al-Awlaki, the cleric whose fatwah calls for the killing of Molly Norris, is a citizen of Yemen. When Yemen joined the United Nations, it committed itself under international law to uphold the UN's rules---including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. If the Universal Declaration of Human Rights grates with the values of the Yemeni people, the Republic of Yemen ought not have joined the international organization devoted to it. But it did join, and now Ms Norris could justly expect the Republic to live up to the legal commitment it chose to make.

But to repeat, it doesn't matter, because Ms Norris isn't, in fact, expecting anything from anyone abroad. All she's expecting is that she not be killed in the USA.
JPB
 
  2  
Reply Sat 18 Sep, 2010 02:57 pm
@OCCOM BILL,
Bill, we're going around in circles. I've never said (nor do I think/believe) that she didn't have the right to make her drawings and/or to make a call for action to join her in her crusade. She absolutely had the right to do that.

You keep inferring that I think she deserves to have to go into hiding to escape being murdered. That's ludicrous. But, it isn't surprising either.

It doesn't matter how many times you try to equate the intent to incite violence to an innocent victim of abuse. It isn't going to change the fact that they aren't the same thing.
OCCOM BILL
 
  0  
Reply Sat 18 Sep, 2010 04:20 pm
@JPB,
JPB wrote:

Bill, we're going around in circles. I've never said (nor do I think/believe) that she didn't have the right to make her drawings and/or to make a call for action to join her in her crusade. She absolutely had the right to do that.

You keep inferring that I think she deserves to have to go into hiding to escape being murdered. That's ludicrous. But, it isn't surprising either.

It doesn't matter how many times you try to equate the intent to incite violence to an innocent victim of abuse. It isn't going to change the fact that they aren't the same thing.
We are not going around in circles. You are flat out ignoring every question asked that, if answered, would expose your predisposition as completely illogical... as victim-blaming usually is.

First they came for the Cartoonists, but JPB was not a Cartoonist so she did not speak out...
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Sep, 2010 04:26 pm
@JPB,
JPB wrote:
It doesn't matter how many times you try to equate the intent to incite violence to an innocent victim of abuse. It isn't going to change the fact that they aren't the same thing.

In this case, however, Islamist extremists are threatening violence, and Molly Norris is an innocent victim. Do you agree? If so, fair enough. You have just made an abstract point about logic then. But if you disagree, then you must be thinking Ms Norris is guilty. Of what?
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Sep, 2010 05:08 pm
@OCCOM BILL,
Oh, horseshit! When have you known me not to speak out?

Here's JPB speaking out. I believe that her poster and her call to action was a blatant attempt to incite violence. She felt that her position was important enough that she should put her life in peril. Good?... Bully?... Oh.My.God.Does.She.Have.Any.Idea.Of.The.Consequences?... for her!!! She accomplished what she set out to achieve. A WHOLE hellofalot of attention and a death threat to boot.

Thomas wrote:
In this case, however, Islamist extremists are threatening violence, and Molly Norris is an innocent victim. Do you agree? If so, fair enough. You have just made an abstract point about logic then. But if you disagree, then you must be thinking Ms Norris is guilty. Of what?


hmmmm..... I'm finding myself getting stuck on the word "innocent" and then acknowledging a certain "guilt". Innocent in a legal sense? Yes. I've said that repeatedly. Innocent in a naive sense? Absolutely not. She knew what she was doing. She knew the consequences. Are they fair/just/moral/right/? No. Were they to be expected? Yes.
Rockhead
 
  2  
Reply Sat 18 Sep, 2010 05:12 pm
@JPB,
when you toss gas on the fire, you gotta know that you might get burned.
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  2  
Reply Sat 18 Sep, 2010 05:20 pm
@JPB,
but even more than that...

I think what bothers me most about this is her insensitivity to millions of Muslims worldwide and your sentiment that they need to be "desensitized".

"**** 'em if they can't take a joke", eh?

Well, no. Not exactly.
 

 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/20/2022 at 03:03:53