LucidMagic.net
Other => Random Ranting => Topic started by: 420 on April 26, 2010, 07:48:19 PM
-
I'm sure everyone has heard about the death threats against the creators of South Park over a recent episode.
Check this out:
News Article: South Park censored after threat of fatwa over Muhammad episode (http://www.guardian.co.uk/tv-and-radio/2010/apr/22/south-park-censored-fatwa-muhammad)
Jon Stewart's Response Daily Show Clip (http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-april-22-2010/south-park-death-threats)
Simpson's Response from last night's episode:
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Two sides of the same coin.
-
I read about this shit last week.
The creators of South Park didn't censor it, Comedy Central did.
It was a stupid move. I definitely feel that they should make a second one. Comedy Central should have the sense not to censor it the second time.
-
Dunno I'm torn on this one. There is certainly something to be said for respecting others belief systems. It's one thing to have no qualms about making fun of yourself or your beliefs but one shouldn't think themselves entitled to do the same about others. It's common knowledge that Muslims take their religion very seriously, especially when it comes to Mohammad. On the other hand, there is certainly no place for extremist making death threats.
-
Frankly I don't know how anyone can be torn on this issue.
Not just because organized religion is a sham but because religious beliefs are private and personal, and there is no justification for threatening someone's life over a private and personal belief.
And seriously, when it really comes down to it, a death threat is a death threat regardless of the reason. It's simply against the law in civilized society. Even religious people have to obey the law regardless of what liberties they believe their "God" has granted them.
Also, am I the only one who thinks it's ironic that a religion can be threatened? Is there really such a thing as blasphemy? Is God (take your pick) really that much of a pussy? Maybe I'm missing the point but I thought God was a little too mature to be bullied by a bunch of mortals.
-420
-
Frankly I don't know how anyone can be torn on this issue.
Not just because organized religion is a sham but because religious beliefs are private and personal, and there is no justification for threatening someone's life over a private and personal belief.
And seriously, when it really comes down to it, a death threat is a death threat regardless of the reason. It's simply against the law in civilized society. Even religious people have to obey the law regardless of what liberties they believe their "God" has granted them.
Also, am I the only one who thinks it's ironic that a religion can be threatened? Is there really such a thing as blasphemy? Is God (take your pick) really that much of a pussy? Maybe I'm missing the point but I thought God was a little too mature to be bullied by a bunch of mortals.
-420
By reading that it sounds like you agree with me. South Park was stupid to do what they did, by taking people's personal and private beliefs, making them public and ridiculing them.
-
By reading that it sounds like you agree with me. South Park was stupid to do what they did, by taking people's personal and private beliefs, making them public and ridiculing them.
But what South Park does (ie satirizing religions beliefs) isn't against the law. That's why separation of church and state is so important.
On the other hand, threatening someone's life, for any reason, is against the law.
When it comes down to it the issue could be about politics, ethnicity, or gummy bears. It is simply against the law to threaten death or to even incite violence.
-420
-
But what South Park does (ie satirizing religions beliefs) isn't against the law. That's why separation of church and state is so important.
On the other hand, threatening someone's life, for any reason, is against the law.
When it comes down to it the issue could be about politics, ethnicity, or gummy bears. It is simply against the law to threaten death or to even incite violence.
-420
Yes. But even though it's not against the law there is something to be said for common courtesy and respect. Disrespecting people is not against the law but it's also not a good way to live.
-
I think it goes without saying that the people behind South Park are for freedom of speech. If they're so enveloped in their rights to the extent of dying for a 22 minute cartoon how much different are they than a religious extremist group willing to kill for a 1500 year old book. I see respect in practicing restraint and defusing conflict not instigating. Unfortunately some Americans think that all Muslims think like an extremist point of view and some Muslims think all Americans share South Park's perspective. Whether TV personalities like Stewart and South Park want to admit it, they have a much greater influence then I think they sometimes take responsibility for, usually referring to 'but there's puppets on our network' or 'we're a cartoon with a dancing turd'.
-
Yes. But even though it's not against the law there is something to be said for common courtesy and respect. Disrespecting people is not against the law but it's also not a good way to live.
I don't buy this at all. Are you honestly saying that disrespecting people's beliefs is equal to murder?
Beliefs are like assholes, everyone has one and they all stink. See how I flout common courtesy and respect and everyone is still alive and I haven't committed any crimes?... Yeah.
I think it goes without saying that the people behind South Park are for freedom of speech. If they're so enveloped in their rights to the extent of dying for a 22 minute cartoon how much different are they than a religious extremist group willing to kill for a 1500 year old book. I see respect in practicing restraint and defusing conflict not instigating. Unfortunately some Americans think that all Muslims think like an extremist point of view and some Muslims think all Americans share South Park's perspective. Whether TV personalities like Stewart and South Park want to admit it, they have a much greater influence then I think they sometimes take responsibility for, usually referring to 'but there's puppets on our network' or 'we're a cartoon with a dancing turd'.
Again, they are not the same. Willing to die for your beliefs is not the same as willing to kill for your beliefs. The former is bravery while the latter is cowardice.
-420
-
Really, Meclar? So what you're saying is, if I threaten to kill you you'll give me whatever I want? Awesome.
In this sense, "defusing conflict" is equal to giving a bully your lunch money every day, simply because he demands it and you don't want to start conflict. Anyway, if you applied your strategy to American history then I have two things to say to you:
Welcome to New Britain, and Heil mein Fuhrer.
If we backed down every time someone challenged our freedom, there would be no U.S.A. We would also have let the Japanese get away with pearl harbor and Nazi's may still largely run rampant.
Essentially, if they're willing to do it anyway, despite death threats, that's willingness to die for their freedom, regardless of it's form of expression. So what if it's a cartoon? You believe some freedoms of expression should be allowed to be suppressed or taken away simply because they're not of any real significance to you?
Seriously, the need for peace is evident, but sacrificing freedom for security is not peace worth.
-
I think you're dramatizing and taking the issue out of context. I didn't say don't say anything. 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.
Do you really think that our rights and freedoms are in threat if South Park had not aired that show or delayed it?
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.
I don't think they are the same but a much greater divide between them would be one that put South Park at a moral high ground with more people than expressing a right to appease a smaller group.
-
I don't buy this at all. Are you honestly saying that disrespecting people's beliefs is equal to murder?
No they are no where near equal, but they are both wrong. I'm not going to get into a lesser of two evils argument, that's not the point. The point is take the fucking high road, something South Park didn't do by trampling over peolpe's beliefs.
-
No they are no where near equal, but they are both wrong. I'm not going to get into a lesser of two evils argument, that's not the point. The point is take the fucking high road, something South Park didn't do by trampling over peolpe's beliefs.
I just don't believe that disrespecting people's beliefs is wrong.
Consider this scenario: My belief is that religion is offensive and that anyone who expresses their religion publicly is disrespecting my beliefs.
Or this: My religion (the Church of 420) thinks that anyone who has more than two children should be sterilized because they are harming the environment.
Beliefs are a funny thing, not to mention dangerous, because I can make up any old crap and then accuse people of disrespecting my religion. According to you it would be wrong if anyone disagreed with me publicly or made light of my beliefs no matter how fucked up and insane they are.
My religion states that everyone must wear tighty whities on their heads, anyone who disagrees (or laughs) is disrespecting the one true religion.
-420
-
I just don't believe that disrespecting people's beliefs is wrong.
Consider this scenario: My belief is that religion is offensive and that anyone who expresses their religion publicly is disrespecting my beliefs.
Or this: My religion (the Church of 420) thinks that anyone who has more than two children should be sterilized because they are harming the environment.
Beliefs are a funny thing, not to mention dangerous, because I can make up any old crap and then accuse people of disrespecting my religion. According to you it would be wrong if anyone disagreed with me publicly or made light of my beliefs no matter how fucked up and insane they are.
My religion states that everyone must wear tighty whities on their heads, anyone who disagrees (or laughs) is disrespecting the one true religion.
-420
If you're not causing anyone any harm then i can respect your desire to wear tighty whities on your head.
-
I think you're dramatizing and taking the issue out of context. I didn't say don't say anything.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Do you really think that our rights and freedoms are in threat if South Park had not aired that show or delayed it?
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.
-
If you're not causing anyone any harm then i can respect your desire to wear tighty whities on your head.
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
-
I've been trying to talk about what's appropriate not power struggles which is what I mean by taking it out of context.
Not at all, if you respond to force by giving in to it's demands, you're submitting yourself to more of it.
Revolutions are backlashes of force. In this South Park/Muslim Revolution instance no force has been exerted.
It is impossible to respect everyone let alone everyone's beliefs.
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.
So you're saying it's okay to threaten someone just as long as you don't disrespect their beliefs?
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).
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.
We agree here.
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.
Again you're saying "stopped" I advocate practicing restraint and it would have shown something of South Parks depth had they done so.
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.
This is not true by our laws. Inciting a riot is unlawful in itself. Fire in a crowded theater..yeah that's inciting.
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
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.
Anyone can find anything offensive and/or a attack on their belief system.
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...'
-
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
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.
-
I've been trying to talk about what's appropriate not power struggles which is what I mean by taking it out of context.
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.
Revolutions are backlashes of force. In this South Park/Muslim Revolution instance no force has been exerted.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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?
Again you're saying "stopped" I advocate practicing restraint and it would have shown something of South Parks depth had they done so.
Yes, "stopped." Had they restrained from doing what they did they would have "stopped." What "something" would it have shown?
This is not true by our laws. Inciting a riot is unlawful in itself. Fire in a crowded theater..yeah that's inciting.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...'
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
-
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.
But... that's what South Park does. That's all they have ever done in the 15 years since the Jesus vs. Santa (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CtCnJAVQnXE) internet video. I appreciate that you're not impressed by their actions but their actions weren't "wrong".
-420
-
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".
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?
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.
They allowed themselves to be bullied out of their freedom, it's as simple as that.
Ok who got bullied cause they still ran the cartoon... and it's more complex than that!
Not at all, if you respond to force by giving in to it's demands, you're submitting yourself to more of it.
Sorry, I made no mention of revolutions.
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.
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?
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.
Yes, "stopped." Had they restrained from doing what they did they would have "stopped." What "something" would it have shown?
That 'something' is referring to the degree of their depth.
You instigate every single day, and yet, here you are.
That's not true. Look up the word instigate cause after your this and the last post I'm not sure you understand it.
I did not make you do it, you did it yourself and you're responsible for that, not me.
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.
All they did was make a cartoon.
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.
There's always a reason (an instigator), but that doesn't mean it's a good reason.
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...
First it's a small group, now it's everyone is it?
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?
Pretty sure you just did it for me.
I've got a billion I can throw into the mix.
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.
-
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.
"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.
Ok who got bullied cause they still ran the cartoon... and it's more complex than that!
Oh? How so?
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.
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.
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.
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.
That 'something' is referring to the degree of their depth.
I was entreating you to elaborate on that.
That's not true. Look up the word instigate cause after your this and the last post I'm not sure you understand it.
Yes it is. I am well aware what it means, I just use it in a way you're probably not used to.
Instigate: - 1. to cause by incitement; foment[/o]
- 2. to urge, provoke, or incite to some action or course[/o]
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
-
I already explained this to you in this post.
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?
You never answered my question.
What did I miss?
Please make sure you understand the difference between what you think and what you believe. Your sophist tendencies are bunk.
I just use it in a way you're probably not used to.
As in, not accurate or factual.
I don't see where you're going with this.
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.
You said to avoid conflict, rather than defend our rights.
I said something of that. You keep putting words in my mouth and misconstruing or not understanding the context.
I believe it better to defend our rights than to go silent every time a religious group makes a threat.
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.
You don't get it, it doesn't matter how they look at it.
You can't please everybody and you shouldn't try.
Go back and read the posts. Again, I'm not advocating trying to please everybody. No one has yet suggested that in this discussion.
If you want my opinion
Yes I do.
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.
Art has a direct influence and is relevant to the social and culture standards in which it is created.
a Right made by law is defined by the law
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.
I didn't say anything was a joke
I only mentioned 'under 18, as a joke and Kevorkian' as example of circumstances. I think the discussion has left us a little defensive.
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?
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."
I understood your argument when you made it.
I question that as seeing your reaction:
Welcome to New Britain, and Heil mein Fuhrer.
All this, and I still disagree with you.
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.
-
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?
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...
What did I miss?
You didn't miss it, you dodged it.
Why should any one time be a better time to do the same thing?
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.
Please make sure you understand the difference between what you think and what you believe. Your sophist tendencies are bunk.
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.
As in, not accurate or factual.
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.
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.
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?
I said something of that. You keep putting words in my mouth and misconstruing or not understanding the context.
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?
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.
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.
Go back and read the posts. Again, I'm not advocating trying to please everybody. No one has yet suggested that in this discussion.
I didn't say you were. Should I make the same recommendation? ;)
I only mentioned 'under 18, as a joke and Kevorkian' as example of circumstances. I think the discussion has left us a little defensive.
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.
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."
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.
I question that as seeing your reaction:
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.
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.
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.
-
You're disgust and lack of acknowledgment of facts is a testament to your ignorance. Again you retreat and conveniently use a shallow concept of nothing is relative to hide be hide due to your inability to articulate and express an independent and valid opinion.
So far I'm not lawfully accountable for your defensiveness on your character, however I am personally and socially accountable for that feeling. If I were to use profanities and obscenities it would be inappropriate and a lack of restraint.
-
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.
Regardless of what Trey and Matt said, it has never been appropriate to create images of Muhammad in any form. It is a tenet of the Islamic faith that creating images of Muhammad is strictly forbidden as it could potentially lead to idolatry. Ironically, there are no such rules regarding the idolization of their clerics.
And this leads back to the point I've been stressing: No one has the right to limit my freedoms based on their religion. At best it is bullying, at worst it is Fascism.
Again, offending someone's beliefs, intentionally or otherwise, is not wrong. Imposing your beliefs on others through threats and intimidation is wrong.
-420
-
You're disgust and lack of acknowledgment of facts is a testament to your ignorance. Again you retreat and conveniently use a shallow concept of nothing is relative to hide be hide due to your inability to articulate and express an independent and valid opinion.
So far I'm not lawfully accountable for your defensiveness on your character, however I am personally and socially accountable for that feeling. If I were to use profanities and obscenities it would be inappropriate and a lack of restraint.
I like you, you're funny.
-
Again, offending someone's beliefs, intentionally or otherwise, is not wrong
-420
Backwards and selfish thinking.
-
Backwards and selfish thinking.
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 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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
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?
-
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.
-
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'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
-
Do you think freedom of speech can be exercised frivolously?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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