News Stories

[Nosauz]

Originally Posted by Fipskuul

You need to be blind to not see the hatred among a non-negligible portion of the western people towards Islam (vice versa). Some may appear in the form of the cartoonists in Denmark, that may have started drawing with the sole intention of insulting other people, people they see not equal to them, or at the level of slaves. Some (who may or may not be drawn in to such insulting critics) may go beyond that and appear in the form of Neo-Nazis, or next generation crusaders. When you are starting to lose control over some of your so-called civilized modern-minded people, and if those people appear to use those so-called freedom of speech with solely hurting other people, you need to make a pause. Especially when the tension among religions follows a worsening trajectory.

And, coming from US, interesting that you mention those ideas. Especially when your country is a country that gives the biggest support to such despotic regimes for your sake, so that you can enjoy your freedom of speech in your country. And I don't think there were many critics of those politics, until the Sep. 11 attacks. So, it is not tyranny when those people are pushed towards that non-tolerating boundaries by the politics in your country (towards inhuman living conditions), but it is tyranny when the result your politics created in other countries is affecting your freedom of speech.

Sorry but when a ruling class limits the thoughts allowed into its peoples head, it is a very dangerous step toward tyranny. America was founded on fighting against tyranny, fighting against powers that were disconnected from the people. This is important because most religions today are disconnected from the people that believe in them. Just look at the Catholic Church's stance on condoms and aids. The idea that nobody is allowed to criticize islam because its a religion is asinine. Rioting muslims over a picture of Muhammed is stupid, I could draw a stick figure and say its muhammad does it mean anything? No... restriciting the freedoms of humans is wrong, because no man was ever given that domain. Even under the gods these religions follow only the "god" has that right yet, muslims want to restrict speech, hipocrsy is thy name. Your argument is bascially strawman, and doesn't even deal with the issues I was addressing. I really don't care if my country is moral or not, at least in this country I can say what I believe and not have to worry that if it goes against the mainstream opinion I'll be imprisoned.

WHy do they have to change the picture of Muhammad, give me a logic justification.. other than rioting muslims?? Why should they change their work to appease one group who is strong arming them?

Also all you have said so far is strawman straw man straw man, address the issue of freedom and stop dancing around it. The point is Muslims are allowed to decry everybody but everybody is not allowed to question the validity of Islam, sounds like aces to me.

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by Fipskuul

I guess, a better way to say, unless these cartoonists are overly ignorant of Islam, they knew what they were doing. They could have also published cartoons showing a hateful leader of the 2nd world war as a God that the religion he preyed on believes in, or maybe showing another Prophet, for the religion that is surrounded by controversies, having sex with a minor, etc. Expect to see powerful reactions to those too. Just because you have freedom of speech does not mean you have every right to insult another, and especially if that is done with the sole intent of doing that.

Actually, it does. Freedom of speech is not the freedom to only say consensual things. Its true measure is how much of a jerk you can be, and to how many people high and low. Not how many asses you're allowed to kiss.

Just an example, but if you know that a group of members in a community are going to be executed if you draw cartoons that will trigger that. That time, do you continue to do that using freedom of speech, or should you be stopped to prevent that?

I ain't the one pulling the trigger. Whatever happened to personal responsibility?

[Sazelyt]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

Actually, it does. Freedom of speech is not the freedom to only say consensual things. Its true measure is how much of a jerk you can be, and to how many people high and low. Not how many asses you're allowed to kiss.

Rightfully or wrongfully? Correct me if I am wrong, if you are a wrongfully jerk, aren't there laws to protect the offended people? Doesn't that say that there is a limit of how much jerk you can be? And, if a jerk's action is already known beforehand to trigger wild responses, and maybe deaths, do you consider such actions still within the limits of freedom of speech?

If those cartoons would have resulted in the deaths of innocent civilians because of one jerk's offending actions, how can you say that person didn't intend to achieve that in the first place?

I ain't the one pulling the trigger. Whatever happened to personal responsibility?

The answer is not everyone is you.

[Nosauz]

@Flipskull
Circular Logic much? Really just think about what you are saying. You basically say that we are not resposnible for our own actions... Good job. Its like fat people blaming mcdonalds for making them fat... same principal same idea. Because you know what mcdonalds says eat mcdonalds and if people follow that then mcdonalds must be the reason why people are fat.

[Sazelyt]

Originally Posted by Nosauz

Also all you have said so far is strawman straw man straw man, address the issue of freedom and stop dancing around it. The point is Muslims are allowed to decry everybody but everybody is not allowed to question the validity of Islam, sounds like aces to me.

I don't decry anybody. And there are many others doing the same. Just because you had seen bad examples does not mean those represent the whole community. That means if a person wants to insult the bad examples targeting the whole community, then you are not only insulting the people who have nothing to do with those bad examples, you are also strengthening those bad examples. I don't see a logic in those. That is like saying just because you have a license to kill, you should kill.

Originally Posted by Nosauz

@Fipskull
Circular Logic much? Really just think about what you are saying. You basically say that we are not responsible for our own actions... Good job.

Actually, what I was saying is not everyone has to carry the notion of personal responsibility within themselves. And there is a reason why hate related speeches come with a consequence.

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by Fipskuul

Rightfully or wrongfully? Correct me if I am wrong, if you are a wrongfully jerk, aren't there laws to protect the offended people?

Wrongfully a jerk? What the hell does that mean? If you're talking about defamation and libel laws - sure, there are. If you present things that are factually untrue as being otherwise. That doesn't cover caricature. Which, by the way, the "offended parties" also practice. So how about some reciprocity, uh? Being touchier and more violent doesn't make you more right. Or entitled.

And a propos of nothing, your posts offend me. I really want to punch you in the face right now. Or burn your country's flag. Or whine about it on the internet, anyway. So how about you shut up? I mean, isn't that how you work?

Doesn't that say that there is a limit of how much jerk you can be?

Being a jerk and being a liar are different, and at best, it says there are limits to freedom of speech, which is an entirely different thing from your point that it doesn't apply to jerks. Indeed, if there were no jerks and we just shut the hell up for fear of offending people halfway across the world, we'd never have invented the concept of "Freedom of Speech" in the first place.

And, if a jerk's action is already known beforehand to trigger wild responses, and maybe deaths, do you consider such actions still within the limits of freedom of speech?

If the "actions" you're talking about are merely drawing cartoons... Yes, totally. Now, I'm not necessarily a supporter of absolute freedom of speech before all other considerations. But, again, that's different from saying it's not a matter of freedom of speech. If you're going to use censorship, you should at least own up to it.

And in this particular case - sorry, but unless you can prove he slipped mind control devices in his damn cartoons, I have trouble holding someone responsible for what others decide to do in response to drawings that don't even pretend to be serious.

If those cartoons would have resulted in the deaths of innocent civilians because of one jerk's offending actions, how can you say that person didn't intend to achieve that in the first place?

Again - personal responsibility. I could call you names and question your ancestry, hygiene, and sexual habits, in drawing, writing, speech, and smoke signals - if you decide to react violently, it is your choice, your responsibility, and your fault.

The answer is not everyone is you.

What, so I'm the only one to be responsible for my own actions? How messed up is that, and what's so special about me?

[Nosauz]

You are driving me nuts. Your point is that people should have common courtesy, yes that is true but sorry not all people are a like. There will be people who disagree and don't follow common social standards when it comes to thinking. To get so riled up over one persons opinion is asinine, if that was the case we'd all just give up on living, because I guarantee that someone from somewhere will disagree or hate you wrongfully, does it mean your gonna go fire bomb their house no. Live with it. Athiests get greif all the time for being faithless heathens who will burn in hell. Do they go and riot in the streets against christians? No. The fact is not everyone is going to agree, saying controversial things will ruffle feathers, but that just means that freedom is mainted. And I don't blame the denmark cartoonists. His impression was that Muhammad sponsors suicide bombers, jihad is holy war and muhammad is holy... go figure.

ps you are god damn lucky I didn't sleep much last night or i'd actually take this argument seriously, thats what you get when you go watch NCAA

[Sazelyt]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

Wrongfully a jerk? What the hell does that mean? If you're talking about defamation and libel laws - sure, there are. If you present things that are factually untrue as being otherwise. That doesn't cover caricature. Which, by the way, the "offended parties" also practice. So how about some reciprocity, uh? Being touchier and more violent doesn't make you more right. Or entitled.

And a propos of nothing, your posts offend me. I really want to punch you in the face right now. Or burn your country's flag. Or whine about it on the internet, anyway. So how about you shut up? I mean, isn't that how you work?

Reading that post, I see why there is a significant need for stopping leisurely offending people triggering genocide kind of actions around the world. Because they are incapable of thinking the results, and even if they are aware, they feel no responsibility at all. Because they don't care. They don't care if theirs mindless actions result in another's death. They are not hurt, so that is what it only matters. And everything so nicely follows under the heading of freedom of speech. If you cannot stop yourself, then the laws should stop you.

[Nosauz]

AGGGGGGGGHGHGHGHGHGHGH. I'm at the point were I want to rip my spine out. What is point? People who kill people are not responsible for killing others? You basically justify murder is another persons fault and not the person killing that person. Sorry that just doesn't compute. It makes zero sense. Explain your reasoning, because if you think about it you have none.

[Anh_Minh]

Flipskuul: "Triggering genocide"? Hyperbole, much? And by the way, you should make more of an effort when writing your posts. I'm not even sure what you're saying.

And while people getting killed is sad... So's letting bullies dictate what your values should be. Seriously, "they're violent, so we should do whatever they want"? Is that your guiding principle? Where does it stop? Our women walk unveiled. I'm sure that offends them. Should we make laws forcing them to adopt a "traditional" garb? And when I say "traditional", I'm not even talking about our traditions. What's up with that?

We're not all muslims. They've got to find that rather offensive. You're going to vote for laws converting us all?

You want to talk about consequences? Well, think about the consequences of not standing up to bullies and bending over for whoever's willing to kill at the drop of a hat. Of rewarding that kind of attitude.

[Sazelyt]

Originally Posted by Nosauz

AGGGGGGGGHGHGHGHGHGHGH. I'm at the point were I want to rip my spine out. What is point? People who kill people are not responsible for killing others? You basically justify murder is another persons fault and not the person killing that person. Sorry that just doesn't compute. It makes zero sense. Explain your reasoning, because if you think about it you have none.

Being responsible and not feeling responsible are different things. Kind of like looking directly at you from your inside, and looking at you from a second person's eyes. In my view, if you intentionally trigger actions that result in others' death, then you are also responsible for these actions. The first person and second person views may differ, at this point though. Since not everyone is the same, and has the same notion of responsibility.

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

Flipskuul: "Triggering genocide"? Hyperbole, much? And by the way, you should make more of an effort when writing your posts. I'm not even sure what you're saying.

Welcome to my that is why I stopped reading and enough is enough world.

[Nosauz]

Thats asinine, I breathe the air, a terrorist breathes the air I've breathed, they then detonate their bomb, because of my breath of air, I kileld all those innocents... yea that makes complete sense. People are only responsible for their actions. Not others. Kind of like how a parent is responsible only up to a certain degree to what their children do. In the end the idea that some people should not be allowed to express themselves because they might offend someone is just asinine because what gives you the right to judge. Even if you "say" someone induced you to kill, doesn't mean its true. Because you know what people who kill because of what someone says is as guilty as any murderer. Don't just give killers a out. We are in control of ourselves and if you can't see that and the deflection is just a way to through the blame to someone else. This will always happen, just like people who blame videogames for making kids killers... no kids choose to kill because their disillusioned with the world they live in. Not the fact that they played a videogame...

jesus why can't I be as fluent as Ahm ming... sigh I just fail... good damn you North Carolina... god damn you if only I had slept properly.

[Sazelyt]

Originally Posted by Nosauz

Kind of like how a parent is responsible only up to a certain degree to what their children do.

If you know that your child has psychological problems, and you give him/her a gun, and the child kills himself, for you, only the child is responsible. For me both. And I think that is difference in our views.

[Nosauz]

Your logic is asinine. I really don't see any merit in what you've said. Basically what you say is that if someone is going to get enraged to the point where they are willing to kill then you should not do anything to trigger them. That includes living the life you are accustomed to... makes perfect sense. Lets live our lives in fear that someone will take offense in the way we live. Sorry but Muslims aren't tollerant of other people, they believe if you don't believe then your are wrong. Which is pretty much every other religion, so how should we live? In your world view we should just be the good cogs like everybody else, and not live like the actual individuals we are. And your comment about a kid and a gun... when the fuck did I say that. Nice job cherry picking what I said.

[Xellos-_^]

at the end of the day it is the responsibility of the person who pull the trigger because someone somewhere else did something he didn't like.

It is not the fault of the danish cartoonist if the terrorist kill someone because they didn't like his cartoons. trying to blame the danish cartoonist for the result of bunch of wackoes is asinine.

[LeoXiao]

The law should not prevent people from saying anything as long as it doesn't do actual harm. Sure, the Danish cartoonist may have been a jerk and personally I think he should've thought a little before drawing Muhammad as a suicide bomber, but that is his right. And guess who else has those same rights? All Muslims in nations where free speech is allowed. Instead of making death threats, Muslims could've have written editorials defending Muhammad, or they could've drawn their own cartoons to counteract the Danish one.

[Kuea]

http://www.itworld.com/government/65...et-piracy-pact

Is this the end for Animesuki?

"[...]the countries involved have been discussing how to deal with criminal enforcement of each others' copyright laws."

So if the US starts "enforcing" Japan's copyright... then ....

[Sazelyt]

Not surprising to see the free of guilt psychology the Americans share here. But it is my mistake to even question that. If the Iraq civilians killed because of the invasion cannot make the people behind that admit their responsibilities, then of course I cannot expect from people living in the same community something that requires even a higher level of understanding.

[Nosauz]

What are you talking about, on the news when ever innonocent civilians are killed by terrorists they are reported just as our troops die. Don't be stupid. Your tone is one of moral superiority which is not the case. Americans are aware of the heavy collateral damage in Iraq, but its not our faults when terrorists decide to detonate their bombs in crowded street markets because girls are being taught in schools. Check your sources before you claim your mightier than thou postion.

[Sazelyt]

Of course it is not your fault. It is all Saddam's fault. Anything happens in the region is never US's fault. God bless them all, pure white silky angels sent by the God to the all humanity to erase all dirt in the world on God's orders. Zzzzz