Gramsci wrote:So Islam is just going to have to get used to being treated the shame as every other idea.

Impressive Freudian slip.

si-maro wrote:

Gramsci wrote:So Islam is just going to have to get used to being treated the shame as every other idea.

Impressive Freudian slip.

Actshoolly I was just typing it with a Dutch ashent sho Sunlore could undershtand it.

Where where you when the leader of one of the greatest islamic states in the world nuanced the holocaust, primitive guy? Where was your voice of dissent, of disgust then? Where was your voice of dissent when one of the leaders of Dutch Muslims compared homosexuals to pigs and thieves?

But it isn´t really about that, it´s really all about you, isn´t it, primitive guy? The whole damn world can be damaged and insulted, as long as it isn´t you and your petty superstitions, right, primitive guy?

Fuck, the more a think about it the more pissed I get.

Primitive guy.

EDIT: I´m sorry if my language is a bit strong here. We had people killed over this kind of stuff, and my damn backyard, so to speak. I am passionate about it, but I don´t wish to offend anyone.

Gramsci wrote:This one is really the only one they needed to print to make the point.

What was that picture, Gramsci?

Did it look like this?

EDIT: double post

Gramsci wrote:This one is really the only one they needed to print to make the point.

However, this isn't about the quality of the cartoons, it's about one of our most important freedoms, free speech, which isn't up for negotiation in any form. So Islam is just going to have to get used to being treated the shame as every other idea.

I agree largely with what you're saying here; I think that it is awful that these crappy wee cartoons could cause so much hassle.

To address kerble's point though: I don't think the paper should have printed these cartoons. (But they should be allowed to) Seeing as they did print though, I don't think people should be stopped from complaining about it. But they should try and be reasonable about it. The problem for me is when they start threatening violence, especially as this is so counter-productive. It certainly makes me angry (as an agnostic) against a group of people that I otherwise wouldn't have a problem with.

Freedom of speech ought to be limited in some respects, I think. I mean, I hate to come across as a Marxist or something, but it seems tolerably clear that the freedom has a greater meaning when you are Rupert Murdoch than when you are X homeless guy on the streets of Glasgow. So, I'm in favour of, for example, limiting the free speech of the press in at least two circumstances: when it encroaches on someone's private life unfairly, or when they are just telling lies about someone (and by "someone" I never mean a company. Corporations shouldn't be protected from speech at all, ever).

To lighten the mood:

What's yellow and smells like blue paint?
























Yellow paint!

boom boom

Mr. Binary wrote:
Freedom of speech ought to be limited in some respects, I think. I mean, I hate to come across as a Marxist or something, but it seems tolerably clear that the freedom has a greater meaning when you are Rupert Murdoch than when you are X homeless guy on the streets of Glasgow. So, I'm in favour of, for example, limiting the free speech of the press in at least two circumstances: when it encroaches on someone's private life unfairly, or when they are just telling lies about someone (and by "someone" I never mean a company. Corporations shouldn't be protected from speech at all, ever).
...

Terrible, terrible idea.

Restricting free speech just forces it underground. You can’t control what people think and feel. Banning certain “ideas” from the public sphere does nothing, even if they are crappy, racist, hateful etc.

How can you challenge shitty ideas if idiots aren’t allow to say them in public.

Just look at Matty, if he wasn't allowed to talk super-natural nonsense how have we have known he is a wack-job?

unpoppy wrote:

that reminds me of the time i saw a muslim guy wearing this

i said, "washington nationals fan?" and he said, "no, it says allah."
so that's one item i won't be wearing in airports anymore.

only here wrote:

i said, "washington nationals fan?" and he said, "no, it says allah."
so that's one item i won't be wearing in airports anymore.

Is it just me or...

unpoppy wrote: Burger King recalls 'sacrilegious' desserts

That should actually read "SACRILICIOUS".




...we need wood for the fire.



Welcome to the 21st century. I'm with free speech on this one.
Although the arguments put forth by you lot make me happy this is
only board i frequent.

Kerble, you so eloquent!