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

Quote:

Defending Nazi asshole's right to assemble is worth defending. Defending a hippie’s right to burn the flag is worth defending. And yes, defending Larry Flint's right to make dirty jokes about prominent religious figures was worth defending.

Yes, but you don't defend Nazi speech by engaging in it yourself, you don't defend burning the flag by burning flags en masse, and you don't defend religious attacks by engaging in them! You instead intellectually argue why people should be allowed to express themselves.

Part of my apprehension is the idea that this is exactly what these groups want: To legitimize the notion that the USA/West/etc is the enemy of the "Islamic world."

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:

Defending Nazi asshole's right to assemble is worth defending. Defending a hippie’s right to burn the flag is worth defending. And yes, defending Larry Flint's right to make dirty jokes about prominent religious figures was worth defending.

Yes, but you don't defend Nazi speech by engaging in it yourself, you don't defend burning the flag by burning flags en masse, and you don't defend religious attacks by engaging in them! You instead intellectually argue why people should be allowed to express themselves.

Were it not for a legal system equipped to defend these unpopular acts, that is precisely how you would defend them. If every passerby were willing to engage a mugger in Manhattan (rather than mind their own business), how many muggings do you suppose there would be? Our government is not equipped to defend Matt and Trey, so we must by broadening the target to us all. If we don't, the bully will have won... and he WILL use this tactic again. Read JFK quote again… and see if it rings true.

Our government is not equipped to defend Matt and Trey, so we must by broadening the target to us all.

Part of my apprehension is the idea that this is exactly what these groups want: To legitimize the notion that the USA/West/etc is the enemy of the "Islamic world."

This kind of propaganda won't be used to attack us necessarily, it will be used to galvanize local tribes into their cause (to any end).

Bill - Still. What about the Muslims that have nothing to do with this?

failures art wrote:

Part of my apprehension is the idea that this is exactly what these groups want: To legitimize the notion that the USA/West/etc is the enemy of the "Islamic world."

This kind of propaganda won't be used to attack us necessarily, it will be used to galvanize local tribes into their cause (to any end).

This is a valid point to be sure. But If find it less compelling than telling the guy who would murder a cartoonist that he will not force his beliefs on me by way of threat. What's next, threatening to kill women who wear short skirts? (You'd better believe that's in the master plan.)

Is drawing Mohammad for the sake of free speech somehow better than shouting "nigger" or "spick" for the sake of free speech?

I am concerned about the picture used as a still at the start of the video.
the picture of that bear is synonomous with nasty pictures of children

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Pedobear

that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years (i.e., till his death).