South Park vs Religion

Quote:

Shows like this and Wonder Showzen really push the envelope and aren't afraid to take on their opponents full force.

Why don't you get off of Trey and Matt's dick before you open your mouth?

Quote:

Comedy Central made the right decision here, and frankly, the South Park creators need to learn a thing or two about the difference between freedom of speech and the moral and physical consequences of their actions, not just for them, but for in particular, other Americans living around the world whos lives are endagered by such arrogant stupidity.

While you do have a point, the argument presented by the episode was that caving into the threat of terrorism is what makes it work. That we're willing to change our ways of life so we can avoid another 9/11 essentially does mean that the terrorists have won.

Most amazing jew boots

Or, we could have better security, instead of fewer freedoms. It's been 5 years since 9/11, and we still have terrible customs, and a widely-mentioned estimate of 12 million illegals in the country. If that isn't a testament to how "safe" we are from terrorism, I don't know what is.

The fact of the matter is that nobody is truly safe. Acts of terror can happen anywhere at any time. The best we can do to combat terror, is to target organizations that support it in its organized state. Random acts of terror, however, we'll always be subject to. Would the Patriot Act have stopped the Oklahoma City bombing?

There's nowhere I can't reach.

I like how your response doesn't mean anything. I essentially just told you that the best thing we can do to combat terrorism is to attack it's support structure. The thing about a support structure, though, is that it tends to support bodies and groups. Like an organization, say, Al Qaeda.

These organizations pool resources and receive funding for these resources from sources outside of the organization. What resources, exactly, did the Unabomber draw from?

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

And whose freedoms are we restricting? Foreigners aren't guaranteed any freedoms by the constitution. If what you're talking about is more thorough customs regarding immigration and visitation, I fail to see how that applies to any loss of freedoms on our part whatsoever.

We have to actively cut off the backing for networks like Al Qaeda, and the only way to do that, is to project force and diplomacy. Domestic policies aren't going to be the end-all for combating terrorism, no, but ultimately terror itself is undefeatable. Why should we be willing to give up freedoms out of fear of some sand nigger with a shoe bomb, when a kracked out Aryan could drive a bus full of fertilizer into a federal daycare center?

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Quote:

They need to learn how to laugh at themselves and just take things in stride. It's not like any Muslim is getting hurt by these images. If anything, the appropriate response from them would be to retaliate in a like manner, which in this case would be by making Jesus cartoons and such

According to Islam, Jesus is relative to a prophet. I recall a guy who wrote a play where Jesus was gay receiving death threats. In any case, featuring Jesus pooing on everybody is probably an insult to the prophet, so Trey and Matt are going to be receiving death threats regardless of what Comedy Central did in regards to Muhammad.

How the Muslims are most likely to react is with a cartoon insulting American culture. Probably something about McDonalds or KFC, and Bush. It's essentially how they responded to the Danish cartoons. (and they boycotted Danish products)

Dope, I have no idea what point you're trying to get across. How does curtailing our freedoms in order to fight terrorism, help combat it?

I was speaking idiomatically.

No, it's since you express your thoughts as a promo instead of an opinion that lines get crossed. The conclusion drawn, then, is that you're either a plant, a parrot, or you're incapable of expressing any thoughts in a form that hasn't been presented in a magazine ad, or a kiss-ass review article.

I mean, really Jazz, you've got to look at what you're saying. Your assesments are full of buzz words that nobody puts any stock in.

How ya doing, buddy?

And while they certainly do that, pulling in Wonder Showzen has no bearing on the discussion, since Wonder Showzen is not a sattire. Having God lose in a game of rock/paper/scissors, dying, and being eaten by children is not pushing the envelope in any meaningful way.

FELIPE NO

Wouldn't terrorists come up with plans, and means of communication that circumvent data mining? I recall only several hundred news segments mentioning something about Al Qaeda being loosely knit to avoid intelligence gathering.

Avoiding phone calls to Habib is a fairly simple measure when you're planning a bombing.

How much safer are we with our freedoms being curtailed? We apparently can't say, because any information regarding that is a "Threat to National Security."

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

I'm going to ask you something off topic here.

Are you high?

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Is there an ethical clause in Comedy Central's charter stating that there will never be a portrayal of the prophet Mohammad? Which is more ethically sound, reporting the truth that kills, or a lie that saves lives?

I know it's more of a press issue, but I can't really think of a better analogy.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

That rational decision, however, involves the idea that if they air the material, Muslims will blow shit up. How does that not insult Islam as a whole?

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Quote:

So what you are suggesting is that Christians and other groups that are offended should riot like the Muslims have? I mean, it's only fair that they react the same way since they are treated the same.

That is essentially the crux of the argument. It's the basic idea behind terrorism.

Assuming that Christian interest groups did riot, I can guarantee you that they would get results. The fact that they don't riot and aren't associated with terrorism is testament to shows like South Park and Wondershowzen. There is no fear associated with lambasting their icons, so there is no risk.

However, when we elect not to express ourselves out of fear of violence, we're being cowed into complacency.

Whether or not Comedy Central decided to pull Muhammed is inconsequential, the point of the show was to illustrate that terrorism works when you let its threat change your life.

Martin Luther King Jr. wasn't cowed into complacency, and for that he was shot. Men like King that were willing to stand up and express themselves despite the threat of reprisal are the only ones that have actively elected to practice the First Ammendment.

I'm not saying that Trey Parker and Matt Stone are moral crusaders here, just that they have a point that you don't seem to be willing to entertain.

I mean, it's obvious that you don't get it, since you've compared making fun of people to a punch in the goddamn face.

Also, Kudos Jazz, I had completely forgotten about Muhammed in The Super Best Friends. It really puts things in perspective.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

So, exactly how is a legitimate concern regarding the legitimacy of certain gospels tantamount to a bomb turban?

I was speaking idiomatically.

Quote:

The motivations of the cartoonists are at the heart of the issue. If they are really trying to get across a message, then great. If they are just trying to start shit, then not so great.

I highly doubt the purpose was to incite Muslims. Creating a visual representation of the prophet is considered Blasphemy, but that doesn't exactly apply to non-Muslims. Obviously, if you aren't a part of a religion, you aren't committing its blasphemies. The problem lies in the Prophet being insulted as he was in the Danish press.

I remember an arab cartoon that Adamgian posted which seemed apt, portraying Freedom of Speech in Denmark as ok so long as you're making fun of Islam.

Adamgian also has a point about the portrayal of Arabs in the media. Comedy Central itself has Carlos Mencia come on every week attacking Arabs and Muslims, but he's a wetback so it's ok. The hypocrisy is astounding, especially considering that the specific episodes weren't insulting Islam.

Most amazing jew boots

What Skexis is saying is that the Danish government's refusal to distance themselves from the opinions expressed in Jyllands-Posten doesn't come off as a protection of free speech, and more as a condoning of the act of insulting the Prophet.

People loved to champion the causes of the Danes despite their illegitamacy regarding the issue.

FELIPE NO

Quote:

Censoring them is not my goal, but what really do they want to accomplish except to inflame hatred among the people they would conceivably most want to convince?

TV executives?

Quote:

Championing free speech just because is precisely why free speech exists. You know that, right?

Free Speech doesn't exist to be championed, and it doesn't exist so that people can be reasonable. If we were honestly looking to create a reasonable society, Skexis, then we'd outlaw political parties.

Freedom of speech exists so that no matter who you are and what you think, you have the right to voice those opinions in any forum. Of course, you can't say anything anywhere. If you went to the Anti-Defamation League and said that the 12 Jew Bankers were using Orthodox Judaism to take us off the Gold Standard and crush the United States in debt, they'd be well within their rights to eject you from the premises. If you go out in public with a megaphone and shouted "Niggers need to go back to Africa!" that's making a nuisance of yourself, and is called Disturbing the Peace. There are acceptable boundaries for the expression of one's opinion, but ultimately the point is that one should be able to express it.

Freedom of Speech only exists because the rule of law allows us to voice our thoughts without the fear of reprisal, and that's what the "Family Guy" episode was trying to get across. If people are kept from voicing their opinions out of fear, then we have no freedom of speech.

That said, it's well within the rights of Comedy Central to censor certain materials in the best interest of the company. I mean, they didn't show tits when they aired those crappy teen movies, right?

Nobody has been denied the First Ammendment, the problem however, is that we've allowed it to become undermined due to intimidation.

How ya doing, buddy?

Quote:

I don't think you fully understand tyhe 1st Amendment in that case. It's a right and has nothing to do with necessity.

On the other hand, nobody's rights are being denied. Comedy Central owns their own air time, and they have full operational right to decide what can or can't go on it.

Quote:

I think the terrorists have already shown their unwillingness to negotiate or take part in diplomacy. They always want everything their way!

So, it should be up to us to show the err of their ways? Quite the burden you'd be accepting there, eh?


Ultimately I basically can't agree with Skexis, though. I'd rather live in an environment where I can hurt people's feelings and be treated in kind.

Jam it back in, in the dark.