Anger Over Mohammed Cartoon

[footfootfoot]

squirell nutkin, my evil, tailless twin.

[Griff]

Originally Posted by Kitsune

Oh, now we're sharing our alts?

If you show me yours I'll show you mine.

That alt is already shared. When its funny its me. When its COCK that'd be Jimbo.

[Griff]

I still don't know who put lumber on the ignore list. That was amusing.

[anonymous]

Originally Posted by Griff

I still don't know who put lumber on the ignore list. That was amusing.

Maybe they'll fess up on the "revelations and confessions" thread.

[Pie]

Originally Posted by tw

Recidivism among pedophiles is reported to be one of the lowest among criminals - about 15%. Crimes such as vehicle theft are typically 60+%. Above being a secondary point.

Yes, I agreed to entertain this concept when Kitsune pointed it out, above.

Originally Posted by tw

Primary point: one can appreciate Austria's fear or need (which one is part of a larger question) to make such holocaust laws that would otherwise be a violation of free speech. There is a line somewhere - subjectively. And that is the point.

All I am trying to say is that I am not happy with the Austrian's location of that line. Capisci? I think I've said it two or three times now.

Originally Posted by tw

However Irving all but flaunted that law. As long as he stayed out of Austria, then there would be no extradition. But Irving was either so obviously bold or so simply stupid as to go to Austria to give a speech to right wing extremist students. He all but begged Austria to enforce their laws. Austria did just that. IOW the purpose and enforcement of that law becomes secondary. The real penalty to Irving is because 1) he outrightly lied to the court about his change of opinion, and 2) he outrightly challenged Austria to enforce their laws.
Need we also cite an unfortunate American example - Dr Kevorkian?

Fine whatever, throw them all in the klink. The ONLY point I was trying to make is that the definition of that "line" is awfully important.

tw, you're very good at arguing with yourself.

[Trilby]

You know, I'm bad at this. I'm computer handicapped and more emotional than rational, but, to get back to the argument (sort of): there ARE depictions-paintings, tile-work, of the big M, dating back to the Middle Ages. Probably, this has been brought up. And, "B", have any of you read OBL '98 article entitled 'Jihad'-? and, Islam is a religion of peace? Mohammed didn't say so. He was in favor of smiting. Smiting them (at least me, a sinner*) good.

*and, i'm sinning now! SMOKING!!!!! HA! however, the flower pot ashtray is not working as well as I thought it would.

[Trilby]

What?

[Pie]

I dunno, I guess they all went home.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Pie

tw, you're very good at arguing with yourself.

Who's arguing? If you think I am arguing, then you have no grasp of the constructive intent in my posts. Provided are talking points (examples) to frame a definition, a principle, or a better comprehension of this subjective concept called 'freedom of speech'. To define limits upon which one can challenge a law with legitimate reasons.

Why does free speech in Austria get to be less than in America and still be considered acceptable or not acceptable? The answer to that is found in reasons or guidelines. Examples were posted to help define or justify those guidelines. Instead you think I am arguing with you? Of course not. We should be moving onto a better understanding or better principles upon which to judge Irving, pedophiles, and Kevorkian.

Upon what basis or principles would one judge the innocence or guilty nature of each? Even subjective judgments are not valid without underlying reasons or principles. What would those principles be that Pie might use to decide? There is no argument. There exists a open ended question just begging to be challenged by one's grasp of worldly ideas.

One can think those Mohammed Cartoons are acceptable or are worthy of killing. OK. Why? Upon what principles does one make such decisions?

Originally Posted by Brianna

You know, I'm bad at this. I'm computer handicapped and more emotional than rational, but, to get back to the argument (sort of): there ARE depictions-paintings, tile-work, of the big M, dating back to the Middle Ages. Probably, this has been brought up.

Yeah, this is now like the third time someone has mentioned that, but who's counting? Apparently the artists who did create those depictions of the big M are not going to have virgins in paradise. Just jaded ladies like you and me and I've sworn off Muslims for Lent, so its gonna be up to you girl!

Originally Posted by Brianna

And, "B", have any of you read OBL '98 article entitled 'Jihad'-? and, Islam is a religion of peace? Mohammed didn't say so. He was in favor of smiting. Smiting them (at least me, a sinner*) good.

Not a good path to wander down. Do you realize how many jillions Jehovah Himself smote in the Old Testament? Christianity? A religion of peace?

ps I like your new sig - is that Chaucer I'm reading?

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by marichiko

ps I like your new sig - is that Chaucer I'm reading?

Are you joking?

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

Are you joking?

No, people really don't beleive I have brain hiccups, but I do. What is it?

[Happy Monkey]

This is possibly my absolute favorite book.

Thank you. If its not in words that I use every day, its unfortunately gone. I'd like to say that would have been my second guess, but probably my second guess would have been Beowulf or something. Oh, well.

[Happy Monkey]

Here's what's happening in that passage.