Other > Random Ranting
South Park vs. Revolution Muslim
Soul Sojourner:
--- Quote from: Meclar on April 28, 2010, 06:48:01 AM ---I think you're dramatizing and taking the issue out of context. I didn't say don't say anything.
--- End quote ---
Not at all, if you respond to force by giving in to it's demands, you're submitting yourself to more of it. When those who make demands with force get what they want, they come back and demand more. By giving in to them, slowly but surely, you enslave yourself.
True freedom of speech no longer exists in this country, and it gets worse as time passes.
--- Quote from: Meclar on April 28, 2010, 06:48:01 AM ---But out of respect for everyone wait until a more appropriate time and keep in consideration that more people are affected than just Comedy Central. Also South Park edited the episode before Comedy Central did which shows that they attempted to do that. Physical attacks and threats are two different things and the potential to carry out physical attacks is another.
--- End quote ---
So this is an issue of respect then is it? It is impossible to respect everyone let alone everyone's beliefs. In fact, by simply respecting one person or their beliefs, you disrespect someone elses. To outright and purposefully disrespect everyone's beliefs is about as respectful as I've seen anyone get. It shows, at least, that you do so equally across the board. So you're saying it's okay to threaten someone just as long as you don't disrespect their beliefs?
--- Quote from: Meclar on April 28, 2010, 06:48:01 AM ---The more violence breaks out, wars occur and laws broken, governments increase security measures which directly influences our privacy and restricts our (elements of) freedom.
--- End quote ---
While it is true that enforcement is made to respond to violence and must increase it's ability to do so when the amount of violence increases in turn, it is not true that our freedoms need be restricted as a result of violence. The problem with your logic is that you're saying it should be stopped at the level of the instigator and not at the level of the law-breaker. Law breakers do not always require a single instigator, but in any case where they are willing to break laws because of an instigator, the instigator is not at fault, the law breaker is responsible for their own actions. It does not matter what the intentions of the instigator were, bad or good, they should not have to self-restrict their freedoms due to the possible response of others. An instigator can be anyone. An instigator could be someone walking down a sidewalk and being beaten to death simply because their presence instigated another. Do not deny the possibility of this scenario, this is a realistic scenario, the person could be confused and angry and take it out on the instigator, or it could be gang territory, or any other number of possibilities. In this way, you're logic is flawed. To simply not act because another may react. It doesn't matter if you're making a cartoon that disses religions, or a movie that praises butterflies. Anyone can find anything offensive and/or a attack on their belief system.
--- Quote from: Meclar on April 28, 2010, 06:48:01 AM ---Do you really think that our rights and freedoms are in threat if South Park had not aired that show or delayed it?
--- End quote ---
No. You're missing the point. I do not think that a single incident will change everything, be real. However, I do believe that if we were to continually respond to threats and violence by letting those who use them against us have what they want, we will become slaves. If I cease to speak every time someone is offended, I will never speak again.
420:
--- Quote from: Mo on April 28, 2010, 02:46:34 PM ---If you're not causing anyone any harm then i can respect your desire to wear tighty whities on your head.
--- End quote ---
Fair enough. Now if someone were to voice their opinion about my religion by saying, "Dude, that's a ridiculous religion." Do you support their right to express that opinion?
-420
Meclar:
I've been trying to talk about what's appropriate not power struggles which is what I mean by taking it out of context.
--- Quote ---Not at all, if you respond to force by giving in to it's demands, you're submitting yourself to more of it.
--- End quote ---
Revolutions are backlashes of force. In this South Park/Muslim Revolution instance no force has been exerted.
--- Quote ---It is impossible to respect everyone let alone everyone's beliefs.
--- End quote ---
I'm not sure you even read what I wrote here it is again: ...South Park at a moral high ground with more people than expressing a right to appease a smaller group.
--- Quote ---So you're saying it's okay to threaten someone just as long as you don't disrespect their beliefs?
--- End quote ---
I had to come back to this quote. I have no idea where you got this from but my answer: No, I think threats are a rash emotional reaction and sometimes it's ok to disrespect someone's beliefs (immediate social level etc).
--- Quote ---While it is true that enforcement is made to respond to violence and must increase it's ability to do so when the amount of violence increases in turn, it is not true that our freedoms need be restricted as a result of violence.
--- End quote ---
We agree here.
--- Quote ---The problem with your logic is that you're saying it should be stopped at the level of the instigator and not at the level of the law-breaker.
--- End quote ---
Again you're saying "stopped" I advocate practicing restraint and it would have shown something of South Parks depth had they done so.
--- Quote ---Law breakers do not always require a single instigator, but in any case where they are willing to break laws because of an instigator, the instigator is not at fault, the law breaker is responsible for their own actions.
--- End quote ---
This is not true by our laws. Inciting a riot is unlawful in itself. Fire in a crowded theater..yeah that's inciting.
--- Quote ---An instigator could be someone walking down a sidewalk and being beaten to death simply because their presence instigated another. Do not deny the possibility of this scenario, this is a realistic scenario
--- End quote ---
It's a made up scenario not even an anecdotal one at that. And again even by our laws and assuredly most people without knowing it, know that to walk down the street in itself is not instigating, inciting or unlawful.
--- Quote ---Anyone can find anything offensive and/or a attack on their belief system.
--- End quote ---
I reiterate that I don't expect South Park to appease everyone but express some humility and not adhering to what everyone expects them to do.
I encourage you to play out a scenario where there was a press release with the creators of South Park saying 'Hey you know what maybe we'll just let this blow over for a while and release it later (on a DVD or something) because it's important to a lot of people not because we're afraid of attacks but it's a cartoon...'
Mo:
--- Quote from: 420 on April 28, 2010, 08:58:00 PM ---Fair enough. Now if someone were to voice their opinion about my religion by saying, "Dude, that's a ridiculous religion." Do you support their right to express that opinion?
-420
--- End quote ---
Sure I would. But here's the catch. South Park isn't stupid, they picked on the touchiest subject just for the controversy. I'm unimpressed.
Soul Sojourner:
--- Quote from: Meclar on April 28, 2010, 10:09:17 PM ---I've been trying to talk about what's appropriate not power struggles which is what I mean by taking it out of context.
--- End quote ---
It's not taken out of context at all. It is directly related to freedom, which is exactly what I was talking about. They allowed themselves to be bullied out of their freedom, it's as simple as that.
--- Quote ---Revolutions are backlashes of force. In this South Park/Muslim Revolution instance no force has been exerted.
--- End quote ---
Sorry, I made no mention of revolutions. On the note that no force has been exerted, no, only the threat of force. But my statement holds true for the threat of force.
--- Quote ---I'm not sure you even read what I wrote here it is again: ...South Park at a moral high ground with more people than expressing a right to appease a smaller group.
--- End quote ---
No, I read that part. My response was to what I quoted, not that. South Park can say what it likes, we have that freedom, not just as a country but as human beings. You would see this undone? Why? Because you're offended? You're worried someone else will be offended? I care more about my rights than someone elses touchiness.
--- Quote ---I had to come back to this quote. I have no idea where you got this from but my answer: No, I think threats are a rash emotional reaction and sometimes it's ok to disrespect someone's beliefs (immediate social level etc).
--- End quote ---
By who's standards is it okay? Right and wrong are opinions and it's not against the law to disrespect someone's beliefs. So why, in your opinion, is it only sometimes okay? Why not all the time? What's wrong with their timing? I don't see what you're getting at. Why should any one time be a better time to do the same thing?
--- Quote ---Again you're saying "stopped" I advocate practicing restraint and it would have shown something of South Parks depth had they done so.
--- End quote ---
Yes, "stopped." Had they restrained from doing what they did they would have "stopped." What "something" would it have shown?
--- Quote ---This is not true by our laws. Inciting a riot is unlawful in itself. Fire in a crowded theater..yeah that's inciting.
--- End quote ---
If it's not true by our laws we should all be in prison. You instigate every single day, and yet, here you are. However, I was not speaking of laws specifically but of actions. I was using lawbreakers as an example, but any person in any instance will due. Were I to tell you to jump off a cliff and you were to do so, I did not make you do it, you did it yourself and you're responsible for that, not me. In terms of laws, sure there are instances when an instigator can be punished for the actions of others. Whether or not every instance of this justice is actually just is another story. My point was that people are responsible for their own actions even if they point the finger of blame at an instigator, especially in this case, where the instigator was not directly involved with the people who responded. In other words, were they to act they would be responsible for their actions, not South Park. All they did was make a cartoon.
--- Quote ---It's a made up scenario not even an anecdotal one at that. And again even by our laws and assuredly most people without knowing it, know that to walk down the street in itself is not instigating, inciting or unlawful.
--- End quote ---
I did not say it was unlawful. I also did not say it had anything to do with what the law defines as instigation. I disagree, I believe is instigating, I believe every action is an instigator in some way. But since you don't like my scenario...
http://www.10news.com/news/18416889/detail.html
... here's a real one.
"for no reason..." There's always a reason (an instigator), but that doesn't mean it's a good reason.
--- Quote ---I reiterate that I don't expect South Park to appease everyone but express some humility and not adhering to what everyone expects them to do.
--- End quote ---
Would you like me to personally mail them saying that you'd like them to express humility, but also not to adhere what everyone expects them to do (including you)? Yeah, that will go over well. First it's a small group, now it's everyone is it?
For all we know, they could've planned a good part of it as a way to mock censorship.
--- Quote ---I encourage you to play out a scenario where there was a press release with the creators of South Park saying 'Hey you know what maybe we'll just let this blow over for a while and release it later (on a DVD or something) because it's important to a lot of people not because we're afraid of attacks but it's a cartoon...'
--- End quote ---
Pretty sure you just did it for me. Regardless of that, there are infinite possibilities in the ways in which it could be played out, what is the purpose of doing so? Or is this your way of expressing your opinion that this cartoon is trivial to you?
In that case, if you're just arguing possibilities and viewpoints, let me know, I've got a billion I can throw into the mix. We can discuss this for months to come.
Here's another take: http://www.insidevandy.com/drupal/node/14195
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version