Islam just can't stand images of Mohammed

[Ford]

Right. And they didn't try to publicize it at all. Just had the contest at a private space, tried really hard to keep it to themselves, and when someone found out that the contest was happening they went out of their way to explain that it was not meant to offend, provoke, or otherwise cause a disturbance.





The motivations of these people are so transparent even the Clinton Foundation's accountants couldn't miss it.

It matters not a fuck what there motives were. What twisted idea leads you to think it does?

If their (not "there") motivation was to provoke a violent response, I think it matters. As I already said, it doesn't excuse the violence, but if you think they were just having a cartoon contest for shits and grins, then you're the one with the twisted idea.

 

[J842P]

It matters not a fuck what there motives were. What twisted idea leads you to think it does?

If their (not "there") motivation was to provoke a violent response, I think it matters. As I already said, it doesn't excuse the violence, but if you think they were just having a cartoon contest for shits and grins, then you're the one with the twisted idea.

How does it matter, precisely?

Also, you admit it is pretty much a safe bet that you can effect a violent response by blaspheming the prophet Mohammed?

 

[skepticalbip]

It matters not a fuck what there motives were. What twisted idea leads you to think it does?

If their (not "there") motivation was to provoke a violent response, I think it matters. As I already said, it doesn't excuse the violence, but if you think they were just having a cartoon contest for shits and grins, then you're the one with the twisted idea.

Do you get just as upset over art that is intended to offend Christians? If not, why not? Do you think that the National Endowment for the Arts should stop funding modern art?

 

[Ford]

Right. And they didn't try to publicize it at all. Just had the contest at a private space, tried really hard to keep it to themselves, and when someone found out that the contest was happening they went out of their way to explain that it was not meant to offend, provoke, or otherwise cause a disturbance.





The motivations of these people are so transparent even the Clinton Foundation's accountants couldn't miss it.

You seem to have completely missed a major movement in modern art of the last several decades. This movement's intent is to shock and to offend existing beliefs, values, and mores. And, as dismal has pointed out, much of it is funded by tax money through the National Endowment for the Arts.

Oh I'm aware of it. And the fact is that whenever one of these exhibits of art is displayed or up for funding, there is a debate over whether it should be displayed. The value of the piece as art is weighed very seriously against any potential backlash. To put something like "Piss Christ" on display is to take an enormous financial risk in the name of art and free speech. Those arguments have to be weighed carefully, and the art and free speech side does not always win.


This "cartoon contest" is not exactly a major movement in modern art over the last several decades. In fact I'd question whether it is even art, let alone modern. I could have entered the "contest" by drawing a stick figure with an arrow pointing to it and the word "Mohammed" and I'd have a chance at winning. This isn't art...it is a shit political stunt staged by people who want to raise money for their paranoid campaign to stop Sharia law from taking over America. These are the same idiots who claimed a proposed Muslim community center in the general vicinity of the former World Trade Center was a "Ground Zero Mosque" meant to piss on the graves of the victims of 9/11.



Are you really comparing the activities of these assholes to a modern art movement?

 

[Ford]

If their (not "there") motivation was to provoke a violent response, I think it matters. As I already said, it doesn't excuse the violence, but if you think they were just having a cartoon contest for shits and grins, then you're the one with the twisted idea.

Do you get just as upset over art that is intended to offend Christians? If not, why not? Do you think that the National Endowment for the Arts should stop funding modern art?

I'll ask again...


Do you really think this "draw Mohammed" cartoon contest is a modern art movement?

 

[TSwizzle]

Islam just can't stand images of Mohammed

The followers of teh islam can't stand much of anything it seems.

 

[J842P]

Do you get just as upset over art that is intended to offend Christians? If not, why not? Do you think that the National Endowment for the Arts should stop funding modern art?

I'll ask again...


Do you really think this "draw Mohammed" cartoon contest is a modern art movement?

Insofar as the intention is to insult Christianity, I'd say it's comparable, no?

 

[skepticalbip]

Are you really comparing the activities of these assholes to a modern art movement?

Not at all. I am saying that your outrage is partisan political and a double standard, that you would have no criticism of a similar "contest" that asked for entries that would upset Christians like drawings of Jesus masturbating.



ETA:
Which, by the way, I think would be funny as hell. But then I see no problem with drawings of Mohammed.

 

[Trausti]

Are you really comparing the activities of these assholes to a modern art movement?

Not at all. I am saying that your outrage is partisan political, that you would have no criticism of a similar "contest" that asked for entries that would upset Christians like drawings of Jesus masturbating.

Hypocrisy: Prejudice with a halo.~Ambrose Bierce

 

[Ford]

I'll ask again...


Do you really think this "draw Mohammed" cartoon contest is a modern art movement?

Insofar as the intention is to insult Christianity, I'd say it's comparable, no?

No, because in this instance the intention was not to insult Islam, but to provoke a violent reaction so that the provocateurs could publicly have their prejudice confirmed.


If these people are artists, then Fred Phelps was fucking Picasso.

 

[Ford]

I am saying that your outrage is partisan political...

I'm outraged? How so?

But then I see no problem with drawings of Mohammed.

I guess you missed the part where I said I didn't either.

 

[Trausti]

What? No one posted the winning cartoon?

 

[skepticalbip]

I'm outraged? How so?

Not by the drawings but outraged that anyone would have a "contest" to draw them, knowing it is taboo by Muslims.

You didn't, however, address the core of my post. Would you be equally upset with someone having a "contest" to draw Jesus masturbating knowing that it would upset Christians?






Again, I think it would be funny as hell but then I have no problem with the draw Mohammed contest.

 

[Ford]

Would you be upset with someone having a "contest" to draw Jesus masturbating knowing that it would upset Christians?

Me personally? Absolutely not.


But if there were a cabal of terrorists that went around the world killing anyone who dared depict Jesus masturbating, and a bunch of idiots decided to have a contest where they'd display such pictures and say to the terrorists "hey, come at me, bro!"?

As a practical matter, that's not a terribly brilliant move.


So as a counter-question...the "Freedom Tower" in New York City. Built on the same ground as the World Trade Center. Do you think that we'd be wise to paint a giant picture of Mohammed sucking Abraham's dick on the side of that building?


I mean...it's art, right?

 

[skepticalbip]

Would you be upset with someone having a "contest" to draw Jesus masturbating knowing that it would upset Christians?

Me personally? Absolutely not.


But if there were a cabal of terrorists that went around the world killing anyone who dared depict Jesus masturbating, and a bunch of idiots decided to have a contest where they'd display such pictures and say to the terrorists "hey, come at me, bro!"?

As a practical matter, that's not a terribly brilliant move.

So you would only have problems with such a contest if Christians went on rampages and killed people anytime their beliefs were "disrespected"? I just hope Christians don't learn that that is the way to mold society and force legislation to their liking.

Personally, I don't want to forfeit my freedoms to such threats. We didn't close family planning clinics for Christians and we shouldn't stop lampooning the absurd because of Muslims.

So as a counter-question...the "Freedom Tower" in New York City. Built on the same ground as the World Trade Center. Do you think that we'd be wise to paint a giant picture of Mohammed sucking Abraham's dick on the side of that building?

I mean...it's art, right?

Stupid but if, somebody wants to do it, WTF, as long as I'm not paying for it.

 

[Ford]

Personally, I don't want to forfeit my freedoms to such threats.

Well you've bought the Pam Geller bullshit hook, line, and sinker, haven't you?

 

[skepticalbip]

Personally, I don't want to forfeit my freedoms to such threats.

Well you've bought the Pam Geller bullshit hook, line, and sinker, haven't you?

I don't even know who Pam Geiler is. Did she advocate Christians go on jihads or something?

Are you saying that if Christians began killing anyone who supported causes they opposed then you would advocate passing legislation they wanted to keep them from killing? I guess that gay couples and abortion would quickly be outlawed if we had more people who thought like you and Christians were militant.

Or would you oppose militant Christians and refuse to willingly give up your freedoms?

 

[Metaphor]

Drawing is not dangerous. I draw all the time, and not once have my drawings come to life and went on a rampage.

It's psychotic extremists who are willing to murder people over a drawing that are dangerous.

This seems like it ought to be quite elementary to grasp.

Of course publicizing drawings of Mohammed is potentially dangerous.

And the people who did this knew it.

Anybody above the age of reason should know it too.

Mindless provocation for provocations sake.

Idiots and fanatics themselves.

It is possible to condemn both violence in the name of religion and fanatics who mindlessly provoke it.

Drawing pictures of Mohammed and letting it be known that you are doing it is morally brave.

Refraining from drawing pictures, and rebuking those who do, is moral cravenness.

 

[untermensche]

Of course publicizing drawings of Mohammed is potentially dangerous.

And the people who did this knew it.

Anybody above the age of reason should know it too.

Mindless provocation for provocations sake.

Idiots and fanatics themselves.

It is possible to condemn both violence in the name of religion and fanatics who mindlessly provoke it.

Drawing pictures of Mohammed and letting it be known that you are doing it is morally brave.

Refraining from drawing pictures, and rebuking those who do, is moral cravenness.

You confuse immature stupidity and mindless provocation with bravery.

To provoke for no other reason but to provoke is not something any adult should respect.

I have the freedom to call every obese ugly person I see ugly and obese. But I would be some kind of senseless moron if I did it.

 

[skepticalbip]

Drawing pictures of Mohammed and letting it be known that you are doing it is morally brave.

Refraining from drawing pictures, and rebuking those who do, is moral cravenness.

You confuse immature stupidity and mindless provocation with bravery.

To provoke for no other reason but to provoke is not something any adult should respect.

I have the freedom to call every obese ugly person I see ugly and obese. But I would be some kind of senseless moron if I did it.

There is a world of difference between lampooning absurd ideas and personal assaults.