Other > Random Ranting
South Park vs. Revolution Muslim
420:
--- Quote from: Mo on April 28, 2010, 11:44:58 PM ---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.
--- End quote ---
But... that's what South Park does. That's all they have ever done in the 15 years since the Jesus vs. Santa internet video. I appreciate that you're not impressed by their actions but their actions weren't "wrong".
-420
Meclar:
--- Quote ---But... that's what South Park does. That's all they have ever done in the 15 years since the Jesus vs. Santa internet video. I appreciate that you're not impressed by their actions but their actions weren't "wrong".
--- End quote ---
--- 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?
--- End quote ---
Ah! there it is! This is what I was getting at. By most Americans standards walking down the street making fun of someone else is wrong. Why because it's on prime time TV makes it..um not right but...unwrong? Trey and Matt have acknowledge that there was a time when it was appropriate to have images of Muhammad in their cartoons.
--- Quote ---They allowed themselves to be bullied out of their freedom, it's as simple as that.
--- End quote ---
Ok who got bullied cause they still ran the cartoon... and it's more complex than that!
--- 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 ---
--- Quote ---Sorry, I made no mention of revolutions.
--- End quote ---
I mentioned revolutions because you didn't. In the power cycle there are revolutions so by submitting to force does not allows submit yourself to more of it.
--- Quote ---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?
--- End quote ---
Yes we have that right as Americans but our rights our not inherent to humans they are a finite thing. They are not genetically encoded within our genes. I think you're forgetting the extent to which we came to these rights. That they are man made rights.
No, I'm not offended but, at the least not surprised, at most, disappointed.
--- Quote ---Yes, "stopped." Had they restrained from doing what they did they would have "stopped." What "something" would it have shown?
--- End quote ---
That 'something' is referring to the degree of their depth.
--- Quote ---You instigate every single day, and yet, here you are.
--- End quote ---
That's not true. Look up the word instigate cause after your this and the last post I'm not sure you understand it.
--- Quote ---I did not make you do it, you did it yourself and you're responsible for that, not me.
--- End quote ---
Again you're simplifying the issue. Ask Jack Kevorkian, or what if I'm a kid under 18 and you're my dad telling me to leap, was it meant as a joke? To some extent the law does see you responsible based on motives, circumstances and evidence.
--- Quote ---All they did was make a cartoon.
--- End quote ---
And here I think we reach a culture gap. The people of Muslim Revolution don't see the cartoon as a whole but only their idol being disrespected. Now the question is 'But being a cartoon in itself does that suggest it has no moral merit?' So all cartoons have no social responsibility? I think that's demeaning and simplifying South Park and other forms of art that tackle moral, cultural etc topics.
--- Quote ---There's always a reason (an instigator), but that doesn't mean it's a good reason.
--- End quote ---
Websters New World College Edition dictionary defines instigation as urging on, spurring on, inciting into action. So having a reason or a motive or presence is not in itself inciting. The closest thing that murderer did to incite was knocking over the victims when he shot them. There is no evidence of the clerk or kid walking down the street urging or instigating people to shoot them. Or do you have a HeLL's New World dictionary that defines words as other meanings...
--- Quote ---First it's a small group, now it's everyone is it?
--- End quote ---
Not exactly sure what you're referring to so I'll try this: I meant we are the small group. Is it a stretch that 1 billion Muslims would appreciate their prophet not being depicted? Is it a another stretch to suggest that everyone expects South Park to do what it has done?
--- Quote ---Pretty sure you just did it for me.
--- End quote ---
--- Quote ---I've got a billion I can throw into the mix.
--- End quote ---
Do you mean you have an opinion other than a link to someone elses? The idea behind playing out discussions, arguments and scenarios is to gain understanding and perspective.
Soul Sojourner:
--- Quote from: Meclar on April 29, 2010, 08:55:58 AM ---Ah! there it is! This is what I was getting at. By most Americans standards walking down the street making fun of someone else is wrong. Why because it's on prime time TV makes it..um not right but...unwrong? Trey and Matt have acknowledge that there was a time when it was appropriate to have images of Muhammad in their cartoons.
--- End quote ---
"By most Americans standards." That's precisely the problem. Freedom of speech and expression isn't circumstantial as to whether people like it or not or what time it can be used. It wouldn't be freedom if it was. You never answered my question.
--- Quote ---Ok who got bullied cause they still ran the cartoon... and it's more complex than that!
--- End quote ---
Oh? How so?
--- Quote ---I mentioned revolutions because you didn't. In the power cycle there are revolutions so by submitting to force does not allows submit yourself to more of it.
--- End quote ---
Revolutions typically occur by people overthrowing their oppressors. You said to avoid conflict, rather than defend our rights. It is true that avoiding conflict doesn't often result in revolution. However, to have a revolution does not require the exertion of force by oppressors. You said that revolutions are a backlash of force, but revolutions may occur from only the threat of force and even without the presence (or threat) of force entirely. I believe it better to defend our rights than to go silent every time a religious group makes a threat.
--- Quote ---Yes we have that right as Americans but our rights our not inherent to humans they are a finite thing. They are not genetically encoded within our genes. I think you're forgetting the extent to which we came to these rights. That they are man made rights.
No, I'm not offended but, at the least not surprised, at most, disappointed.
--- End quote ---
You believe then, that as human beings we are not free to speak when not under the rule of government? Rights as human beings are only as finite as our capabilities, but are still Rights because we may claim them. Rights by law are not the same as Rights by nature. There is a difference. A "Right" is not predefined, a Right made by law is defined by the law. All that is required of a Right is it's claim. However, I was speaking of our freedoms both as human beings and by law, so this side-discussion on Rights is irrelevant even had I referred to the freedoms of human beings specifically as Rights.
--- Quote ---That 'something' is referring to the degree of their depth.
--- End quote ---
I was entreating you to elaborate on that.
--- Quote ---That's not true. Look up the word instigate cause after your this and the last post I'm not sure you understand it.
--- End quote ---
Yes it is. I am well aware what it means, I just use it in a way you're probably not used to.
Instigate: [o]1. to cause by incitement; foment[/o]
[o]2. to urge, provoke, or incite to some action or course[/o]
[/list]
Your problem with my usage is that you feel you need to instigate someone on purpose, such as a taunt. However, simply doing anything can instigate someone to do something.
For instance, I could wear a cowboy hat to the store and that may instigate (urge, provoke, incite) someone to steal it without me having to purposefully provoke them.
Another example, the way stores display their items could encourage me to steal them, though that isn't the reason the store displayed them that way.
Provocation doesn't have to be purposeful. One more example:
I could make a cartoon where I stir up controversy on various subjects and often discriminate religions as a part of it. This might instigate someone to send me death threats, even if that wasn't my purpose.
--- Quote ---Again you're simplifying the issue. Ask Jack Kevorkian, or what if I'm a kid under 18 and you're my dad telling me to leap, was it meant as a joke? To some extent the law does see you responsible based on motives, circumstances and evidence.
--- End quote ---
It's both simple and complicated, I'll give you that. However, everything is simple and complicated. I didn't say anything was a joke, I said I am not responsible for the actions of another. I was not referring to what the law defines as punishable. What South Park did was not against the law, and they are not responsible for the actions of this Muslim group even by the measure of the law, so I don't see where you're going with this.
--- Quote ---And here I think we reach a culture gap. The people of Muslim Revolution don't see the cartoon as a whole but only their idol being disrespected.
--- End quote ---
You don't get it, it doesn't matter how they look at it. South Park has the Right to make a cartoon that portrays their religion and beliefs in whatever way it desires. People can look at anything in any way they want and because of that people offend eachother all the time. You can't please everybody and you shouldn't try. Instead people should focus on not letting shit bother them. If it makes them so upset that they make death threats then that's their issue. If they attack someone then they should be blamed, not South Park. Nobody should be pointing the finger at South Park, they didn't make those guys send death threats or make them attack anybody. Their choices are their own.
--- Quote ---Now the question is 'But being a cartoon in itself does that suggest it has no moral merit?' So all cartoons have no social responsibility? I think that's demeaning and simplifying South Park and other forms of art that tackle moral, cultural etc topics.
--- End quote ---
That's nice, but you're replying to questions you just asked and I didn't say anything of the sort. If you want my opinion, I don't believe any forms of art or expression should have to meet any standards of any form but their own. Whether people choose to like it or not is irrelevant.
--- Quote ---Websters New World College Edition dictionary defines instigation as urging on, spurring on, inciting into action. So having a reason or a motive or presence is not in itself inciting. The closest thing that murderer did to incite was knocking over the victims when he shot them. There is no evidence of the clerk or kid walking down the street urging or instigating people to shoot them. Or do you have a HeLL's New World dictionary that defines words as other meanings...
--- End quote ---
I already explained this to you in this post. I would hope that you can understand it, but whether or not you're able to think outside the box is entirely a problem of your own.
--- Quote ---Not exactly sure what you're referring to so I'll try this: I meant we are the small group. Is it a stretch that 1 billion Muslims would appreciate their prophet not being depicted? Is it a another stretch to suggest that everyone expects South Park to do what it has done?
--- End quote ---
Is it a stretch to say that both things are irrelevant as South Park has freedom of expression, and as it is their Right in our country that they should be able to express it without fear of retaliation?
So they got death threats and ended up with a censored episode. I believe they should make a new uncensored one that further depicts their prophet as well as mocks this whole controversy at the same time.
--- Quote ---Do you mean you have an opinion other than a link to someone elses? The idea behind playing out discussions, arguments and scenarios is to gain understanding and perspective.
--- End quote ---
I mean that I have many opinions and viewpoints on the issue that *I* came up with but aren't *my* beliefs. While that may be true in many arguments and discussions, I understood your argument when you made it. I am telling you only one of my opinions, but it's the one I believe in and that's why I am telling you that one. Other people don't like it when I argue opinions that I don't believe in even if they're mine, so I've been trying not to do that so much. Although it's less that I care what they think and more because people are closed minded and I would *usually* rather spend my time on something else because of it.
You believe that what South Park did was legal and within their Rights, but you feel that they could have handled the situation in a better way. It would be better for them to respect people and their beliefs because their show reaches a wide audience and affects a much greater variety of people than just Americans. People from other countries may be offended by content and often don't realize that this is only the cartoons portrayal and not the belief of all Americans. Because of this, some people react with violence and hostilities and all it does is to create further unnecessary conflict. A certain show of respect from people who have shows like South Park that reach a wide audience could go a long way in solving these misunderstandings and even promote, to some extent, peace between our nation and others, as well as conflicts in other areas such as common differences and religion. You're not saying that they overall can't poke fun, only that they should do so in a more responsible and respectful manner.
Am I right?
All this, and I still disagree with you.
Meclar:
--- Quote ---I already explained this to you in this post.
--- End quote ---
I sometimes don't go back to copy an answer to a question that you might have posted twice. It takes urging into action to instigate. Motive alone is not. That's a fact or is fact something inside the box that you don't follow?
--- Quote ---You never answered my question.
--- End quote ---
What did I miss?
Please make sure you understand the difference between what you think and what you believe. Your sophist tendencies are bunk.
--- Quote ---I just use it in a way you're probably not used to.
--- End quote ---
As in, not accurate or factual.
--- Quote ---I don't see where you're going with this.
--- End quote ---
I am saying that it is complicated as you say yourself but in the same paragraph you express that it is simple and complex, an oxymoron.
--- Quote ---You said to avoid conflict, rather than defend our rights.
--- End quote ---
I said something of that. You keep putting words in my mouth and misconstruing or not understanding the context.
--- Quote ---I believe it better to defend our rights than to go silent every time a religious group makes a threat.
--- End quote ---
Again, I think this is the third time I've said this in this discussion: I'm not saying going silent because of threats but out of respect and what's appropriate. It's another example that you're not comprehending what I'm saying.
--- Quote ---You don't get it, it doesn't matter how they look at it.
--- End quote ---
--- Quote ---You can't please everybody and you shouldn't try.
--- End quote ---
Go back and read the posts. Again, I'm not advocating trying to please everybody. No one has yet suggested that in this discussion.
--- Quote ---If you want my opinion
--- End quote ---
Yes I do.
--- Quote ---I don't believe any forms of art or expression should have to meet any standards of any form but their own. Whether people choose to like it or not is irrelevant.
--- End quote ---
Art has a direct influence and is relevant to the social and culture standards in which it is created.
--- Quote ---a Right made by law is defined by the law
--- End quote ---
Legislation, yes that's true. Natural laws are not universal and are not without question. However much I think there is an inherent dignity to each living creature I hesitate to agree that there are inherent laws.
--- Quote ---I didn't say anything was a joke
--- End quote ---
I only mentioned 'under 18, as a joke and Kevorkian' as example of circumstances. I think the discussion has left us a little defensive.
--- Quote ---Is it a stretch to say that both things are irrelevant as South Park has freedom of expression, and as it is their Right in our country that they should be able to express it without fear of retaliation?
--- End quote ---
That's basically what I said in the first or second post... We know that South park is for the freedom of speech so that's not at question if they didn't air that episode: "I think it goes without saying that the people behind South Park are for freedom of speech."
--- Quote ---I understood your argument when you made it.
--- End quote ---
I question that as seeing your reaction:
--- Quote ---Welcome to New Britain, and Heil mein Fuhrer.
--- End quote ---
--- Quote ---All this, and I still disagree with you.
--- End quote ---
But there have been things that we do agree on. Just because we don't come to those agreements in the same way does not make them disagreements.
Soul Sojourner:
--- Quote from: Meclar on April 30, 2010, 02:14:15 AM ---It takes urging into action to instigate. Motive alone is not. That's a fact or is fact something inside the box that you don't follow?
--- End quote ---
Whoa, whoa, whoa! Let's not get ahead of ourselves here, Meclar. Did you just call the definition of a word a fact? You seriously believe that? Words are ideas. They are created to represent thoughts; they are a form of expression. Words are purely man-made, and to say that a word is fact is saying that something man made up is fact. Do you know, that these definitions, these "facts" as you call them, are often changed, lost, forgotten, removed? The words themselves, even, change over time. While I understand what you're trying to say, you're saying it poorly.
Facts, Meclar? Do you know what a fact is? It's a word, Meclar. If a fact is so inarguable, so absolute, then why does it have more than one definition?
Here's a couple:
1. Knowledge or information based on real occurrences
Hmm...
2.
a. Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed
Could you demonstrate the existence of an idea for me? Or... does that require perception?
b. A real occurrence; an event
Ooh! I love these. Disprove any occurrence or event anyone can think up, just try it.
c. Something believed to be true or real
Everything is a belief.
This is irrelevant, Meclar. Here is where you're beginning to attack my relevancy and character, by bringing in these "facts" everybody uses as a tool to put an end to dispute. I've never held a fact in the palm of my hand, Meclar. Never. Do you know why? Think. You can keep arguing that definitions are fact, and revolutions do whatever, and what you believe Rights are, but in the end, you still haven't answered my questions, or made any argument on the subject at hand that I've not addressed back to you that convinces me that your belief is a better way of thinking than my own.
We'll get to the definition of Instigate in a bit...
--- Quote ---What did I miss?
--- End quote ---
You didn't miss it, you dodged it.
--- Quote from: Soul Sojourner ---Why should any one time be a better time to do the same thing?
--- End quote ---
I do not consider "Trey and Matt have acknowledge that there was a time when it was appropriate to have images of Muhammad in their cartoons." a valid answer to that question. I was asking you.
--- Quote ---Please make sure you understand the difference between what you think and what you believe. Your sophist tendencies are bunk.
--- End quote ---
What you think and what you believe are the same thing. Ah, here's the attack on my character and your reasoning against my relevancy. I'm not surprised by this reaction. Perhaps you don't understand, or perhaps I'm terrible at explaining. Either way, I appreciate the compliment. I see nothing in the definition of the term sophist that I dislike. No, not even the one I assume you're using. I won't bother explaining that to you. You'll just blather on about how I am this and that! Fallacy! Oxymoron! Paradox! ...and I'll quickly grow tired of you. That's the event I foresee anyway.
--- Quote ---As in, not accurate or factual.
--- End quote ---
Oh, I see.
2. to urge, provoke, or incite to some action or course
That is taken straight from: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/instigate
To urge: You can be urged to do something by another without them actually doing anything directly or purposefully to you to make you do it. I can have the sudden urge to eat a burrito, I don't have to be hungry! I don't even have to have had one before. Simply knowing that it's food is enough. Had I not known of it's existence, I might not have had the urge.
To provoke: To bring about, incite, induce.... does not require being done on purpose from another. Same as urge. It can bring about an action, but it does not require one. I might find a woman's clothing provocative. Does that require her to purposely provoke me? No. But had she not worn those specific clothes, I might not have been provoked.
To Incite: To urge or prompt to action. Once again does not require being directly or on purpose. Same as urge and provoke. I might be incited to trip somebody walking down an aisle because I think it would be funny. Had they not been walking down the aisle, I might not have been incited.
Do you not see how anything and everything is provocative, especially in the case of the action of another person, even if that action was not intended to provoke you?
The point was, although South Park's episode would undoubtedly provoke people, they are not responsible for the actions of those people, even more so if they didn't intend, or there's no proof of intent, to provoke them.
--- Quote ---I am saying that it is complicated as you say yourself but in the same paragraph you express that it is simple and complex, an oxymoron.
--- End quote ---
So you're saying it can only be complicated, and therefore it can't be simple. That's a rather narrow view, don't you think?
--- Quote ---I said something of that. You keep putting words in my mouth and misconstruing or not understanding the context.
--- End quote ---
I put what you've been saying in my own words and yet you still say that? You never told me what I was wrong. You said that you see respect in defusing conflict rather than instigating it. But what of standing up for freedoms?
--- Quote ---Again, I think this is the third time I've said this in this discussion: I'm not saying going silent because of threats but out of respect and what's appropriate. It's another example that you're not comprehending what I'm saying.
--- End quote ---
And yet, I summed it up for you in my own words which you have yet to say are wrong. Yes yes, I know what you're saying, and I've replied to that by saying it is their freedom and their choice and there's always going be someone who does it and someone who disagrees. Another example that you're not comprehending what I'm saying? I put it in my own words for you, you tell me if I have it right or not.
--- Quote ---Go back and read the posts. Again, I'm not advocating trying to please everybody. No one has yet suggested that in this discussion.
--- End quote ---
I didn't say you were. Should I make the same recommendation? ;)
--- Quote ---I only mentioned 'under 18, as a joke and Kevorkian' as example of circumstances. I think the discussion has left us a little defensive.
--- End quote ---
One such circumstance involved you asking if a father telling his son to leap was a joke. I never said instigating someone was a joke. Do you follow? I do not believe we are being defensive, text allows much room for poor emotional interpretations. My wife's sister once thought I was "yelling" at her over messenger when I was typing normally. I believe it was because she was only used to being scolded over the internet by people who typed correctly. I do not believe this discussion has any content that should make either of us defensive, but if you are defensive about it I'd like to know why. I've not directly insulted you as far as I'm aware. If I have I didn't intend to.
--- Quote ---That's basically what I said in the first or second post... We know that South park is for the freedom of speech so that's not at question if they didn't air that episode: "I think it goes without saying that the people behind South Park are for freedom of speech."
--- End quote ---
Yes, I know what you said, I said that that's a part of what you're saying in my interpretation of your argument. But you're also saying that they didn't need to air that episode to say that, which is right, but they did so anyway because it is their choice. I'm saying, after the retaliation that I would do it again were I in there shoes, as if to send the message that we do not fear threats against us expressing our freedom. I would have done the first one as well. Uncensored, of course.
--- Quote ---I question that as seeing your reaction:
--- End quote ---
Yes, you suggest practicing restraint not "stopping" entirely. God, I know. I was responding to the "defusing conflict" part and my point with those two statements was about responding to the threat, not the act of making the episode in the first place. I've made other comments addressing the restraint issue.
--- Quote ---But there have been things that we do agree on. Just because we don't come to those agreements in the same way does not make them disagreements.
--- End quote ---
When I said I disagree, I was talking about the situation not the other shit. I didn't say I didn't agree with you on anything, just that I don't overall agree on the topic. And don't worry, I'm not saying you said I said that.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version