|
Post by PhantomWolf on Feb 12, 2006 2:19:21 GMT -4
Without wanting to comment on the geo-political cause for it's appearance, this cartoon appeared in our local paper and I thought rather apt for here.
|
|
|
Post by Retrograde on Feb 12, 2006 10:59:49 GMT -4
Definitely hate speech. Freedom of the press wasn't meant to protect expression of ideas with which someone might disagree.
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Feb 12, 2006 11:27:21 GMT -4
The picture you posted, PhantomWolf, isn't insulting IMHO. It's making fun of people who are definetly 'wrong' in what they believe. (Flat Earth, roflol!)
|
|
|
Post by Fnord Fred on Feb 12, 2006 23:01:08 GMT -4
Then again, the FES in itself was a discordian joke. Taken from flat-earth.org : [Emphasis mine] Unless there's another Flat Earth Society around that takes itself more seriously... Which, unfortunately, there probably is.
|
|
|
Post by Halcyon Dayz, FCD on Feb 12, 2006 23:10:42 GMT -4
It implies that 'sincere and deeply held beliefs' are always stupid. Somebody is going to take offence.
|
|
|
Post by Martina W. on Feb 14, 2006 9:48:55 GMT -4
It implies that 'sincere and deeply held beliefs' are always stupid. To me it implies that 'sincere and deeply held' beliefs' that are totally out of touch with reality are always stupid. But then again I've never been much of a believer in anything. Somebody is going to take offence. Isn't there always?
|
|
|
Post by Dead Hoosiers on Feb 16, 2006 2:00:18 GMT -4
In a free society we're going to hear things we disagree with and may even hurt our feelings. Whiners need to stop viewing themselves as the center of the universe and consider the alternative to freedom of expression.
|
|
|
Post by bughead on Feb 16, 2006 12:55:05 GMT -4
www.kingfeatures.com/features/comics/mallard/about.htmHere's a cartoonist that offends me. It's in my comics section, not the editorials (same as Doonsbury in this paper). He uses strawman "liberals" and "academics" to make fun of anyone that doesn't agree with him. He's vaguely right wing, but claims to be "libertarian." My understanding of Libertarians is that they're mostly thought of as dope-smoking right wingers. I've never tried to burn down the newspaper building, tho', even when he's more obnoxious than Mona Charen. www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/charen.htmlTinsley has every right to put his ideas on paper and get them published. I'm only offended because I feel he is mischaracterizing "liberals." But I don't consider myself a liberal. "Centerists" are supposed to be midway between the left and right. Personally, I'm 180 degrees the other direction. I'm in favor of a woman's right to choose, and a government's responsibility to kill dangerous psychopaths we the citizens don't have to.
|
|
|
Post by Fnord Fred on Feb 16, 2006 14:31:23 GMT -4
LOL at the libertarian definition. Actually, that's pretty close to the truth: they like capitalism, but hate the patriot act, the war on drugs, curfews, etc.
Mallard's Author doesn't seem particularly Libertarian to me, but that's just opinion. He seems to bash liberals only, whereas most libertarians take issue with both parties.
|
|
|
Post by bughead on Feb 16, 2006 20:31:59 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by 67champ on Feb 17, 2006 7:50:41 GMT -4
Exactly what Martina said..!
|
|
|
Post by jaydeehess on Feb 20, 2006 19:20:03 GMT -4
That particular cartoon isn't right or left wing, IMHO, its just stupid. ;D
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Feb 28, 2006 2:41:09 GMT -4
Dead Hoosiers said:
Hear hear.
What angers me about the protests against the Danish cartoons is the fact that papers in the Middle East regularly print cartoons which are far more offensive. In other words, these protests have a purely political basis, especially those which occurred in countries where the only protests which occur are those which are permitted by the government.
The aspect of this story which I found grimly amusing was after the Iranian newspaper announced its Holocaust cartoon project. An Australian newspaper cartoonist had drawn an anti-Semitic cartoon a year or two ago which his Editor had refused to publish, on the grounds that it was offensive. A writer for a TV show somehow obtained a copy of the cartoon and submitted it to the Iranian competition organisers. The cartoonist was offended, and said it had been done to discredit him.
My question is how he can be discredited by the publication of a cartoon which he drew and intended to be published?
PS: The cartoonist never claimed to be upset about the breach of copyright - merely that the cartoon had been published.
|
|
|
Post by iamspartacus on Feb 28, 2006 4:18:27 GMT -4
It came out in the UK press that what offended Muslims more than the content of the cartoons was the depiction of Muhammad himself. This is an absolute no-no in Islam.
The content was secondary. The irony of Islamic protesters threatening death and bombs to the infidel because cartoons depicted Muhammad as a terrorist was not lost on the Muslims that I saw interviewed.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Feb 28, 2006 10:20:16 GMT -4
It came out in the UK press that what offended Muslims more than the content of the cartoons was the depiction of Muhammad himself. This is an absolute no-no in Islam. The content was secondary. The irony of Islamic protesters threatening death and bombs to the infidel because cartoons depicted Muhammad as a terrorist was not lost on the Muslims that I saw interviewed. According to an article in the Sunday New York Times. Membership required. Apparently some segments of the religion allow images of Mohammed outside of the religious circumstances while others are strictly iconoclasts.
|
|