wow.. FREEDOM Of Speech. Open minded... lol... i think if i start making cartoons of jews being fried on an oven... thts freedom of speech... or if i start making cartoons of woman being raped... and funny comments on them. thts freedom of speech... i dont get this... freedom of speech does not give u the right u make someone or a group of people angry... if u have views, yes sure, keep em to urself. but presenting them in this fashion is wrong..
So that's your position? Criticising and ridiculing Mohammed is tantamount to laughing at women being raped and Jews being fried in an oven? I just wanna clarify that. Because these cartoons weren't condoning a Muslim genocide or a pillaging of the women of the Islamic world like the Crusades. They were satirising an historical figure. Now secularism means you allow as much free speech as possible, which may well have to protect the racist or misogynistic examples you provide.
But the protection stops short at death threats. The law kicks in if there's evidence to suggest they're actually planning to carry harmful actions. I say Revolution Muslim did pose that risk by loudly proclaiming on the record that The Quran commands them to terrorise the non-believer, in conjunction with their 'warning' to South Park. That was a genuine red flag for the authorities. Our cartoons did nothing like that. DM Day's message was clear - offence normal, violence not.
@PurushaDesa well thr is a limit to the criticism.. the examples of genocide arent protected for anything other than the reason tht they offend people... suchas jews and woman... and so is draw day is doing.. offending people!!!
Well no but It depends what's in each cartoon. Your examples are illustrated gags about raping women or killing Jews. Now that is deeply offensive. But in order for a secular society to ban them, they should have to prove they're causing physical harm and not just hurting feelings. (I find it hard imagining these images being banned in the Islamic world, with The Qur'an and Muslim countries rife with anti-Semitic imagery). Otherwise their protection should be supported by us.
But Islamic theocracies say no - blasphemy hurts us so much, that we should excuse, maybe even support, the killing of the author. That's insane.
And that's exactly what happened with the Rushdie affair. He criticised an ideology and a religious leader commanded a terrifying level of support for his execution. What exactly are you saying to that behaviour, Aliwali? If you say something they don't like, the only one responsible for your murder is yourself, ergo shut the fuck up?
@PurushaDesa the rushdie affair is very diff... the thing to b noticed is tht if ppl lik U actually try to read about what actually happened... we would never have this problem.. rushdie talked about the killing of jews by the prophet pbhm's order.. but he left out the part where these jews made dealings wid the prophet earliar. they posed to b muslims but used to scheme against the muslims living among them. and by doing so not once, many times the order was set.
Regarding your defence about the fatwa, that does nothing to excuse how many thousands of Muslims reacted. You felt someone made wrongful, offensive charges against the Prophet. Then protest about it to set the record straight. But because someone said something they didn't like, doesn't give anyone the right to commit murder. The bottom line in the civilised world is that no level of verbal offence, lies, slander, blasphemy etc., excuses homicide. It's a demonstrably worse crime.
@PurushaDesa an offence doesnt have to physically hurt someone to be deeply offensive... the offensive can be mental... jews are not being killed today but rather tht concept of being killed in the holocaust is in their minds which is renewed in their memory or conscious which they find offensive if someone supports it or rather evn talks about it. anything doesnt have to physically offensive to be banned or spoke about
So what happens if there's another attack on Gaza, and many people want to express the opinion that the butchering of Palestinian civilians by the IDF is akin to another holocaust or apartheid, only to have Israel supporters demanding all out censorship because anyone who could make such psychologically scarring comparisons is a Jew-hating racist? How does that work? Right now 'protecting people's feelings' is silencing those even trying to expose the oppression of Muslims.
@PurushaDesa no the examples are not the same to tht of the draw day, my point is that people by committing this action are jst provoking the already uneducated and emotional people in the religion whiich already cause soo many problems. u cannot give this name of freedom of speech. provoking someone is diff than presenting ur views. u present ur views in the form of debate not by ridiculing a religious figure. drawing ridiculous figures does not come in tht category
I'm sorry but no one who believes in a plurality society is going to accept that red line. I was making a link between one highly emotive issue of Israel/Palestine and another being the character of Mohammed. You've seen plenty of people now who find the Prophet Mohammed a disgustingly bad foundation for an ideology. If we stand by Muslims' right to express limitless respect for a person we find offensive, then why should we allow the equivalent degree of disrespect to be censored?
@PurushaDesa thinking and knowing are 2 completely different things. if i hate someone or soomething about someone.... i dont need to tell him tht.. nor do i need to say anything about to anyone else... i can jst stay away from him myself as much as i can. someone wid the same feelings doesnt need to team up wid me to humiliate tht person. and ppl dont lik The Prophet PBUh becuz they can justify his teaching throught the actions oF hIS ppl...
What are you trying to establish by saying 'thinking' and 'knowing'? Because we've got it wrong about Mohammed we should be silenced? That's not how it works. You like the guy, we don't, and we're both supposed to get our say.
These questions aren't rhetorical now - I'm genuinely asking : if someone has the opinion that Mohammed hates women and Jews, how would you let that person air that view and disapproval of him in public? What level of criticism would you actually accept?
@PurushaDesa yes, i agree. the action cannot be justified. i was never defending their action. i was defending the Character of My Beloved Prophet PBUH. this whole thing is a revenge against what muslims did... thts the best they could come up wid. lik serious.. if a dog barks u dont need to bark at it.. u jst leave it alone... the validation of the fatwa is debatable. if i kill someone out of self defence, and someone calls me a murderer... i will get angry.... next comment --------
@PurushaDesa yes i will get mad if they call me a murderer.. and ppl often do some crazy stuff when they r mad............ everyone does... u cant blame em... i never said its right... its wrong at a very high level... but to humiliate their religion, their personal faith becuz they were over emotional .... lik yeh target some... make some more sanctions... but why directly go to attack their religion.. u cant justify the targeted humiliation of the religion.
Those separate points you make reducing the Ayatollah's widely supported fatwa, i.e.; the international death warrant, as a matter of self defence does not answer the original question I posed :
If someone wants to publicly convey the opinion that Mohammed is an anti-Semite and misogynist, what degree of their condemnation would you actually allow them to communicate? What would you deem an acceptable way to portray that view? Because right now, you won't even allow a cartoon.
@PurushaDesa i cant stop ppl from having views.. my point is... those views have to b supported through context, u cant jst look at rishdie to get ur own opinion....ppl who jst narrow mindedly follow wht people lik rushdie says.. lik make some research and then say something about someone..u do have the right but u own it to the ppl ur giving ur views to, to do some research cuz by not confirming the facts.. u are pushing them to towards the hate u accidently have for someone
Your opening sentence, "I can't stop people from having views" is enough to draw a close to this, at least for today. You're arguing people need to be able to support their claims with sound reason and I completely agree, so trading evidence in praise and condemnation of the Prophet is the second level of the debate to be saved for another day, and until then we can agree to disagree.
Draw Mo' Day addressed the FIRST level of the debate - the terms of the debate itself, with so many Muslims not EVEN wanting to agree to disagree, but to agree we agree with them, shut up, or not complain when people around us die. All we want is for all of us, the religious majority included, to express how we feel without the threat of reprisals. This exchange now couldn't even take place in countries sharing their censorial approach but it's better for both sides that it did.
@lightofdamon Are you being sarcastic or genuinely enthusiastic? Draw Mo Day has polarised atheists and theists from every walk of life in a sensitivity vs. free speech stand off, so it's increasingly hard to tell.
I meant to be sincerely grateful and flattering to the maker of this video. I was grateful for being told about this event, and am often impressed when somebody does or says something when they are told not to do it. I am a future art teacher and bit of a rebel and freedom lover, so I naturally liked this rebellious act of art to respond to censorship. I didn't consider the polarization aspect yet. Many people seem to move toward divisionism and seperation
@lightofdamon what prupose, to piss people off... let me give u an example. if someone is whistlling or singing in a hospital while patients are sleeping, would u consider tht freedom of speech. no.. u would consider it rude. Thts what this Draw day is. it has nothing to do with freedom of speech. freedom of speech is about having views. and no one stop anyone to have views, give u go infront of a bull with a red cloth, evn tht stupid animal will be offended... thts not freedom of speech..
@Aliwali14 If anyone tells me or anyone else not to draw whatever we want, whenever we want, that is a criminal action. Your whistling in the hospital analogy falls short, since in a hospital you are doing something that other patients can't get away from. There is no controlling force making anyone look at silly pictures of Muhammad.
When u attack Black people,they call it racism. When u attack Jewish people, they call it anti-semetism.When u attack women, they call it sexism. When u attack homosexuality, they call it intolerance. When u attack a Country,they call it treason.When u attack a religious sect, they call it...hate..But when they...attack the Prophet ...Mohammed, they call it freedom of speech!!
islam=intolerance
sycamoreok 1 year ago
yei yei here here !!!!!
recordingbean 1 year ago
NEVAR 4get!
darkdestiny0002 1 year ago
wow.. FREEDOM Of Speech. Open minded... lol... i think if i start making cartoons of jews being fried on an oven... thts freedom of speech... or if i start making cartoons of woman being raped... and funny comments on them. thts freedom of speech... i dont get this... freedom of speech does not give u the right u make someone or a group of people angry... if u have views, yes sure, keep em to urself. but presenting them in this fashion is wrong..
Aliwali14 1 year ago
@Aliwali14 (1/2)
So that's your position? Criticising and ridiculing Mohammed is tantamount to laughing at women being raped and Jews being fried in an oven? I just wanna clarify that. Because these cartoons weren't condoning a Muslim genocide or a pillaging of the women of the Islamic world like the Crusades. They were satirising an historical figure. Now secularism means you allow as much free speech as possible, which may well have to protect the racist or misogynistic examples you provide.
PurushaDesa 1 year ago
@Aliwali14 (2/2)
But the protection stops short at death threats. The law kicks in if there's evidence to suggest they're actually planning to carry harmful actions. I say Revolution Muslim did pose that risk by loudly proclaiming on the record that The Quran commands them to terrorise the non-believer, in conjunction with their 'warning' to South Park. That was a genuine red flag for the authorities. Our cartoons did nothing like that. DM Day's message was clear - offence normal, violence not.
PurushaDesa 1 year ago
@PurushaDesa well thr is a limit to the criticism.. the examples of genocide arent protected for anything other than the reason tht they offend people... suchas jews and woman... and so is draw day is doing.. offending people!!!
Aliwali14 1 year ago
@Aliwali14 (1/2)
Well no but It depends what's in each cartoon. Your examples are illustrated gags about raping women or killing Jews. Now that is deeply offensive. But in order for a secular society to ban them, they should have to prove they're causing physical harm and not just hurting feelings. (I find it hard imagining these images being banned in the Islamic world, with The Qur'an and Muslim countries rife with anti-Semitic imagery). Otherwise their protection should be supported by us.
PurushaDesa 1 year ago
@Aliwali14 (2/2)
But Islamic theocracies say no - blasphemy hurts us so much, that we should excuse, maybe even support, the killing of the author. That's insane.
And that's exactly what happened with the Rushdie affair. He criticised an ideology and a religious leader commanded a terrifying level of support for his execution. What exactly are you saying to that behaviour, Aliwali? If you say something they don't like, the only one responsible for your murder is yourself, ergo shut the fuck up?
PurushaDesa 1 year ago
@PurushaDesa the rushdie affair is very diff... the thing to b noticed is tht if ppl lik U actually try to read about what actually happened... we would never have this problem.. rushdie talked about the killing of jews by the prophet pbhm's order.. but he left out the part where these jews made dealings wid the prophet earliar. they posed to b muslims but used to scheme against the muslims living among them. and by doing so not once, many times the order was set.
Aliwali14 1 year ago
@Aliwali14
Regarding your defence about the fatwa, that does nothing to excuse how many thousands of Muslims reacted. You felt someone made wrongful, offensive charges against the Prophet. Then protest about it to set the record straight. But because someone said something they didn't like, doesn't give anyone the right to commit murder. The bottom line in the civilised world is that no level of verbal offence, lies, slander, blasphemy etc., excuses homicide. It's a demonstrably worse crime.
PurushaDesa 1 year ago
@PurushaDesa an offence doesnt have to physically hurt someone to be deeply offensive... the offensive can be mental... jews are not being killed today but rather tht concept of being killed in the holocaust is in their minds which is renewed in their memory or conscious which they find offensive if someone supports it or rather evn talks about it. anything doesnt have to physically offensive to be banned or spoke about
Aliwali14 1 year ago
@Aliwali14
So what happens if there's another attack on Gaza, and many people want to express the opinion that the butchering of Palestinian civilians by the IDF is akin to another holocaust or apartheid, only to have Israel supporters demanding all out censorship because anyone who could make such psychologically scarring comparisons is a Jew-hating racist? How does that work? Right now 'protecting people's feelings' is silencing those even trying to expose the oppression of Muslims.
PurushaDesa 1 year ago
@PurushaDesa no the examples are not the same to tht of the draw day, my point is that people by committing this action are jst provoking the already uneducated and emotional people in the religion whiich already cause soo many problems. u cannot give this name of freedom of speech. provoking someone is diff than presenting ur views. u present ur views in the form of debate not by ridiculing a religious figure. drawing ridiculous figures does not come in tht category
Aliwali14 1 year ago
@Aliwali14
I'm sorry but no one who believes in a plurality society is going to accept that red line. I was making a link between one highly emotive issue of Israel/Palestine and another being the character of Mohammed. You've seen plenty of people now who find the Prophet Mohammed a disgustingly bad foundation for an ideology. If we stand by Muslims' right to express limitless respect for a person we find offensive, then why should we allow the equivalent degree of disrespect to be censored?
PurushaDesa 1 year ago
@PurushaDesa thinking and knowing are 2 completely different things. if i hate someone or soomething about someone.... i dont need to tell him tht.. nor do i need to say anything about to anyone else... i can jst stay away from him myself as much as i can. someone wid the same feelings doesnt need to team up wid me to humiliate tht person. and ppl dont lik The Prophet PBUh becuz they can justify his teaching throught the actions oF hIS ppl...
Aliwali14 1 year ago
@Aliwali14
What are you trying to establish by saying 'thinking' and 'knowing'? Because we've got it wrong about Mohammed we should be silenced? That's not how it works. You like the guy, we don't, and we're both supposed to get our say.
These questions aren't rhetorical now - I'm genuinely asking : if someone has the opinion that Mohammed hates women and Jews, how would you let that person air that view and disapproval of him in public? What level of criticism would you actually accept?
PurushaDesa 1 year ago
@PurushaDesa yes, i agree. the action cannot be justified. i was never defending their action. i was defending the Character of My Beloved Prophet PBUH. this whole thing is a revenge against what muslims did... thts the best they could come up wid. lik serious.. if a dog barks u dont need to bark at it.. u jst leave it alone... the validation of the fatwa is debatable. if i kill someone out of self defence, and someone calls me a murderer... i will get angry.... next comment --------
Aliwali14 1 year ago
@PurushaDesa yes i will get mad if they call me a murderer.. and ppl often do some crazy stuff when they r mad............ everyone does... u cant blame em... i never said its right... its wrong at a very high level... but to humiliate their religion, their personal faith becuz they were over emotional .... lik yeh target some... make some more sanctions... but why directly go to attack their religion.. u cant justify the targeted humiliation of the religion.
Aliwali14 1 year ago
@Aliwali14
Those separate points you make reducing the Ayatollah's widely supported fatwa, i.e.; the international death warrant, as a matter of self defence does not answer the original question I posed :
If someone wants to publicly convey the opinion that Mohammed is an anti-Semite and misogynist, what degree of their condemnation would you actually allow them to communicate? What would you deem an acceptable way to portray that view? Because right now, you won't even allow a cartoon.
PurushaDesa 1 year ago
@PurushaDesa i cant stop ppl from having views.. my point is... those views have to b supported through context, u cant jst look at rishdie to get ur own opinion....ppl who jst narrow mindedly follow wht people lik rushdie says.. lik make some research and then say something about someone..u do have the right but u own it to the ppl ur giving ur views to, to do some research cuz by not confirming the facts.. u are pushing them to towards the hate u accidently have for someone
Aliwali14 1 year ago
@Aliwali14 (1/2)
Your opening sentence, "I can't stop people from having views" is enough to draw a close to this, at least for today. You're arguing people need to be able to support their claims with sound reason and I completely agree, so trading evidence in praise and condemnation of the Prophet is the second level of the debate to be saved for another day, and until then we can agree to disagree.
PurushaDesa 1 year ago
@Aliwali14 (2/2)
Draw Mo' Day addressed the FIRST level of the debate - the terms of the debate itself, with so many Muslims not EVEN wanting to agree to disagree, but to agree we agree with them, shut up, or not complain when people around us die. All we want is for all of us, the religious majority included, to express how we feel without the threat of reprisals. This exchange now couldn't even take place in countries sharing their censorial approach but it's better for both sides that it did.
PurushaDesa 1 year ago
AMAZING!
Very important and compassionate words!
All of a sudden I feel that I have a greater purpose to abolish this torturous religious stranglehood on a large amount of humans minds
thanks for the powerful speech
lightofdamon 1 year ago
@lightofdamon Are you being sarcastic or genuinely enthusiastic? Draw Mo Day has polarised atheists and theists from every walk of life in a sensitivity vs. free speech stand off, so it's increasingly hard to tell.
PurushaDesa 1 year ago
@PurushaDesa
I meant to be sincerely grateful and flattering to the maker of this video. I was grateful for being told about this event, and am often impressed when somebody does or says something when they are told not to do it. I am a future art teacher and bit of a rebel and freedom lover, so I naturally liked this rebellious act of art to respond to censorship. I didn't consider the polarization aspect yet. Many people seem to move toward divisionism and seperation
lightofdamon 1 year ago
@lightofdamon what prupose, to piss people off... let me give u an example. if someone is whistlling or singing in a hospital while patients are sleeping, would u consider tht freedom of speech. no.. u would consider it rude. Thts what this Draw day is. it has nothing to do with freedom of speech. freedom of speech is about having views. and no one stop anyone to have views, give u go infront of a bull with a red cloth, evn tht stupid animal will be offended... thts not freedom of speech..
Aliwali14 1 year ago
@Aliwali14 If anyone tells me or anyone else not to draw whatever we want, whenever we want, that is a criminal action. Your whistling in the hospital analogy falls short, since in a hospital you are doing something that other patients can't get away from. There is no controlling force making anyone look at silly pictures of Muhammad.
lightofdamon 1 year ago
When u attack Black people,they call it racism. When u attack Jewish people, they call it anti-semetism.When u attack women, they call it sexism. When u attack homosexuality, they call it intolerance. When u attack a Country,they call it treason.When u attack a religious sect, they call it...hate..But when they...attack the Prophet ...Mohammed, they call it freedom of speech!!
kkamshimoe 1 year ago
@kkamshimoe Sorry your comment was automatically flagged as spam. I have tried to correct this by hitting the 'Not Spam' button.
PurushaDesa 1 year ago