South Park vs. Revolution Muslim

[Mo]

I disagree, the backwards thinking happens when people think their personal beliefs should be forced on others. It's the nature of religion that anyone not of that religion is a blasphemer, effectively disrespecting that faith. This makes religion one of the oldest, most powerful forms of oppression.

-420

I agree but both are backwards and selfish.

[Soul Sojourner]

Backwards and selfish thinking.

How is it selfish? You may be disregarding the spiritual welfare of other people, but offending someone's beliefs isn't an act of self-concern.
Both disregard of others and self-concern are required of selfishness.

[Mo]

How is it selfish? You may be disregarding the spiritual welfare of other people, but offending someone's beliefs isn't an act of self-concern.
Both disregard of others and self-concern are required of selfishness.

geez.  You're offending someone because it's obviously making you feel good.  Otherwise you wouldn't bother.  sigh

[420]

I agree but both are backwards and selfish.

South Park hasn't been able to offend me so far and I have a personal faith that isn't associated with any organized religion so it's hard for me to see the other points of view.

However, the adjectives I'd use to describe what South Park does would be: Intentionally offensive, insensitive, critical, satirical, irreverent, juvenile, and yes, even selfish. But I have also found the show enlightening (revealing some of the more insane facts about Scientology), entertaining and, at times, even clever.

But, regarding religious extremists, like Revolution Muslim, I would describe them as, backwards, hypocritical, wrong, evil, dangerous, and nihilistic. There are no positive adjectives with which to describe them other than possibly "cautionary tale".

The difference between the two is that what South Park does is on a completely different level than what the religious fanatics who sling death threats around are doing. It's like comparing apples and oranges. It's like saying that the kid who ate the stink beetle at recess to gross out his classmates is as bad as the man who yells "fire" in a crowded theater just to cause a stampede.

-420

[Soul Sojourner]

geez.  You're offending someone because it's obviously making you feel good.  Otherwise you wouldn't bother.  sigh

You could be a Christian and air a religious show about your faith which would in turn offend various people of other faiths that believe their religion is right and yours is wrong. It would still disregard the religions of others.

But whether on purpose or otherwise, it doesn't matter, because offending someone purposely to make yourself feel better is just one scenario you came up with, but you didn't mention anything that suggests the correctness of that scenario. It may be the case in some scenario's, but not all of them.

Of course, if you have another explanation for it I'm all ears, but as of right now I don't see how it's selfish. Can you clear that up?

[Mo]

I'm talking about this scenario.  I've already explained how it's selfish and 420 even agreed.  It's not rocket science.  My point is both of these sides are wrong. Yes I agree that killing people because they offended you is worse but that's besides the point.

[Meclar]

I don't think South Parks only goal is to offend people and I do like their cleverness but I'm not sure that it's possible to include everyone in their jokes (despite claiming that they do) which leads me to think that they could prove their point by not including anyone.  The only censorship I like is creative/artistic restraint which I think of as a kind of censorship.
Does anyone know of any controversy over the Jewish custom of not printing G-d?

[420]

I'm talking about this scenario.  I've already explained how it's selfish and 420 even agreed.  It's not rocket science.  My point is both of these sides are wrong. Yes I agree that killing people because they offended you is worse but that's besides the point.

Well, we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this issue because I can't accept calling an act of freedom of speech "wrong" for any reason, and I don't think I can sway your point of view either.

I'm also not clear on how you can justify killing people by saying it's "besides the point". I agreed that the act may have been selfish but I also pointed out that religious extremists issuing death threats is in no way equivocal to an offensive cartoon. You just can't compare the two, one is in bad taste the other is illegal, not to mention immoral.

I don't think South Parks only goal is to offend people and I do like their cleverness but I'm not sure that it's possible to include everyone in their jokes (despite claiming that they do) which leads me to think that they could prove their point by not including anyone.  The only censorship I like is creative/artistic restraint which I think of as a kind of censorship.
Does anyone know of any controversy over the Jewish custom of not printing G-d?

I haven't heard that one. I know they use the term "Yahweh", which is God's name, in the Hebrew Bible.

Maybe it's related to this snippet I found on Wikipedia:

This form is a modern scholarly convention: Hebrew scripts write it as four consonants, rendered in Roman letters as YHWH.

Looks like it's just an issue of not using vowels.

-420

[Meclar]

Do you think freedom of speech can be exercised frivolously?

[Mo]

Looks like it's just an issue of not using vowels.
-420

No. You're just not allowed to write God's name down.  That's where the G-d comes from.  You should typically replace it by 'The Lord', or in Hebrew 'The Name'.  God's name is only written down in the Hebrew Bible but as 420 pointed out, it's quite impossible to pronounce as it's missing any vowels.  It's called the Tetragrammaton.  It's also missing vowels in Hebrew.  People normally will pronounce it as Jehovah or Yahweh.

[Soul Sojourner]

I'm talking about this scenario.  I've already explained how it's selfish and 420 even agreed.  It's not rocket science.

Yes, yes. Sorry, Mo. You're right.
Absolutely every action, no matter how selfless the act, is in some way selfish. I know that, I just thought you had a better example.

My point is both of these sides are wrong. Yes I agree that killing people because they offended you is worse but that's besides the point.

If both are wrong, then what is right? Just that you shouldn't disrespect people's religion, or what? Elaborate.

Do you think freedom of speech can be exercised frivolously?

Freedom of speech can be exercised any way desired, otherwise it wouldn't really be freedom, would it?


You guys are offending me. I believe you should practice restraint, because you're disrespecting my religion and I believe it's wrong for you to do that.

My religion states that it is wrong, disrespectful, and selfish of others to believe anything other than my religion. Just saying.

[420]

Do you think freedom of speech can be exercised frivolously?

There is a legal limit to freedom of speech. For instance yelling "fire" in a crowded theater simply to create a stampede is against the law. Freedom of speech does not extend to people intentionally inciting a riot or inciting violence.

So, to answer your question: Yes, and it is against the law.

-420

[Mo]

If both are wrong, then what is right? Just that you shouldn't disrespect people's religion, or what? Elaborate.

Simple.  Try not to put people down.  It's really not a difficult concept.  Maybe it's way ahead of it's time, I dunno.  You people are so worked up over freedom of speech (which is great don't get me wrong) that you easily justify anything someone says.  Problem is, you are also really small minded about it.  What good comes of blatantly insulting someone?  That's what South Park does.  No good came of putting Mohammad in a freaking bear costume ffs.

Yes, yes. Sorry, Mo. You're right.
Absolutely every action, no matter how selfless the act, is in some way selfish. I know that, I just thought you had a better example.

Exactly.

[420]

Simple.  Try not to put people down.  It's really not a difficult concept.  Maybe it's way ahead of it's time, I dunno.  You people are so worked up over freedom of speech (which is great don't get me wrong) that you easily justify anything someone says.  Problem is, you are also really small minded about it.  What good comes of blatantly insulting someone?  That's what South Park does.  No good came of putting Mohammad in a freaking bear costume ffs.

I would argue that the people who are offended by the opinions and statements of perfect strangers are the ones who are small minded. As are those people that try to force their religion on others through threats and violence. Those people need to get a helmet if they want to live in a world with the rest of us.

As for the good that would come from illustrating Muhammad. Maybe if everyone started drawing pictures of Muhammad then the Muslims would get over themselves and stop killing people over nothing.

-420

[Mo]

I would argue that the people who are offended by the opinions and statements of perfect strangers are the ones who are small minded. As are those people that try to force their religion on others through threats and violence. Those people need to get a helmet if they want to live in a world with the rest of us.

As for the good that would come from illustrating Muhammad. Maybe if everyone started drawing pictures of Muhammad then the Muslims would get over themselves and stop killing people over nothing.

-420

Ok everyone's wrong.  So here comes a cliche for you.  Take the high road.  Otherwise you fail.

[Meclar]

Absolutely every action, no matter how selfless the act, is in some way selfish.

Altruism does exist.  You and your freakin contradictory statements. So an  entirely ("no matter how selfless") selfless act is to some degree selfish?

I would argue that the people who are offended by the opinions and statements of perfect strangers are the ones who are small minded. As are those people that try to force their religion on others through threats and violence.

You aren't differentiating people who are offended and by people who are offended and then threaten. Being offended is wrong but the act of offending someone is generally acceptable?

Freedom of speech can be exercised any way desired, otherwise it wouldn't really be freedom, would it?

There are elements of freedom and free will but neither is absolute.  So you agree that it can be exercised frivolously?  If so do you think South Park does so?

No good came of putting Mohammad in a freaking bear costume ffs.

Other people are having the same conversation we are and some of those people may never have done that before. I agree Mo that making fun of people whether it be everyone or a single group is not healthy unless of course they're your friends.

Yes, and it is against the law.

I don't think a society should leave it to their laws to be the extent of their morals, which I think we can agree on. And if a right being exercised frivolously, which is unlawful to you, it's no longer a right being exercised but an unlawful act and I think we can agree that, depending on the act, it may or may not be immoral.   

Maybe if everyone started drawing pictures of Muhammad then the Muslims would get over themselves and stop killing people over nothing.

The building of minarets have been banned and their dress code is in question.

[420]

Ok everyone's wrong.  So here comes a cliche for you.  Take the high road.  Otherwise you fail.

And therein lies the catch, you can't dictate whether someone chooses to take the high road or not. That's exactly what makes our freedoms so important.

If we all acted the same way we wouldn't be unique individuals, we'd just be a bunch of drones. Dissent is often a necessary tool to advance society.

Altruism does exist.  You and your freakin contradictory statements. So an  entirely ("no matter how selfless") selfless act is to some degree selfish?

Correct, every "altruistic" act is, at the most basic level, a direct result of a selfish reaction. Your brain regulates your behavior using a a chemical neurotransmitter called dopamine. We are addicted to this stuff. It's what makes us feel good after we've eaten, it's what rewards us when we solve a puzzle and it's what makes us feel good about ourselves when our actions are reaffirmed by someone we hold in esteem.

True altruism only exists as a concept.

You aren't differentiating people who are offended and by people who are offended and then threaten. Being offended is wrong but the act of offending someone is generally acceptable?

Heh, well, I know it sounds like I'm saying being offended is wrong. And in a way, that is how I feel because I think people are generally gormless fucktards who need to grow a pair. However, I will concede that people have a right to be offended as that is their freedom of religion and expression. But a person's freedom ends where it begins to restrict other's freedoms.

People can have whatever opinions they want and feel offended if they want to, that is their right. However, they can't dictate the opinions of others, that's hypocrisy.

Also, if offending someone wasn't generally acceptable, how do you explain the popularity of stand up comedians?

There are elements of freedom and free will but neither is absolute.  So you agree that it can be exercised frivolously?  If so do you think South Park does so?
Other people are having the same conversation we are and some of those people may never have done that before. I agree Mo that making fun of people whether it be everyone or a single group is not healthy unless of course they're your friends.

Main Entry: friv?o?lous
Pronunciation: \ˈfri-və-ləs\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin frivolus
Date: 15th century

1 a : of little weight or importance b : having no sound basis (as in fact or law) <a frivolous lawsuit>
2 a : lacking in seriousness b : marked by unbecoming levity

I think South Park is frivolous by the definitions 2a and 2b but not by 1a or 1b.

I don't think a society should leave it to their laws to be the extent of their morals, which I think we can agree on. And if a right being exercised frivolously, which is unlawful to you, it's no longer a right being exercised but an unlawful act and I think we can agree that, depending on the act, it may or may not be immoral.

But the laws are the physical manifestation of the morals that we humans can agree on. It may not be the full extent but it's a pretty damn good guideline. The only frivolous act that could possibly be considered unlawful is definition 1b, which could also cover instances of inciting panic or riots.

Maybe if everyone started drawing pictures of Muhammad then the Muslims would get over themselves and stop killing people over nothing.

   
The building of minarets have been banned and their dress code is in question.

I fail to see the connections between these two statements.

-420

[Soul Sojourner]

Altruism does exist.  You and your freakin contradictory statements. So an  entirely ("no matter how selfless") selfless act is to some degree selfish?

My answer to that question would be, absolutely, yes. I read on and 420 already gave an explanation, although not the same as I had planned to give, it covers my point anyway.

You aren't differentiating people who are offended and by people who are offended and then threaten. Being offended is wrong but the act of offending someone is generally acceptable?

I generally agree with 420's outlook on people needing to "grow a pair," but I don't believe that offending someone being "generally acceptable" or not really matters. It was generally acceptable to behead people in ancient Greece. It was also generally acceptable to pit slaves against eachother in an Arena for entertainment in Rome. How many people considered these acts to be wrong? They considered these things sport and entertainment and executions were often a public event. Time has proven several times over that the majority opinion isn't a good measure of what's right or wrong.

There are elements of freedom and free will but neither is absolute.  So you agree that it can be exercised frivolously?  If so do you think South Park does so?

Yes I do. It may not always be legal, but laws change over time, so it could be completely different in the future and has been in the past. As for your second question, 420 summed it up pretty well.

[Meclar]

If a religions practices are being banned or restricted or disrespected they feel threatened and as a result they sometimes isolate themselves or lash out with violence and that puts their motives at more than "nothing".

There's a difference between self interest and selfishness.  Brushing your teeth or doings out of concerns for your health are self interest and physiological reactions are not even conscious decisions.  You have to choose to do something that puts people out for your advancement.

True altruism only exists as a concept.

I was pointing out that in the theoretical situation that he gives where you have an absolute selfless act it would be contradictory to have selfishness included in that act.  I think altruism occurs in degrees but there may not be absolute or true altruism.  So I think we agree just went in a circle to get there.

I think in our culture it is generally acceptable to offend but only for entertainment purposes.  Otherwise Americans find groups like the Westboro Baptist Church generally unacceptable.  Ever see 'Looking for Comedy in the Muslim World'?  I don't think the main character finds any.  The popularity of stand up comedians is isolated to developed and typically Christian dominant western countries.

[420]

If a religions practices are being banned or restricted or disrespected they feel threatened and as a result they sometimes isolate themselves or lash out with violence and that puts their motives at more than "nothing".

Alright, I'll agree with that. I sometimes forget that people's feelings are the only real thing that they experience in this world.

How about: "Maybe if everyone started drawing pictures of Muhammad then the Muslims would get over themselves and stop killing people over graven images."

I think in our culture it is generally acceptable to offend but only for entertainment purposes.  Otherwise Americans find groups like the Westboro Baptist Church generally unacceptable.  Ever see 'Looking for Comedy in the Muslim World'?  I don't think the main character finds any.  The popularity of stand up comedians is isolated to developed and typically Christian dominant western countries.

Very interesting and somewhat worrying. The tradition of comedy is based on the ability of a critic (the fool) to publicly mock the policies of the ruling elite without fear of reprisal. I would expect that cultures which lacked that aspect would stagnate.

-420