South Park vs Religion

Let me get this straight, terrorists have won because because the media has chosen to enforce media ethics. Well ... this is merely one facet of it. Data mining, wiretapping, etc. are all really acts of the American government.

If indeed you concede that terrorism has won then you're conceding that America made the mistake of trying to protect the lives of its citizenry through stricter implementation of rules.

If you at it that way, then there's no possiblity of America being the victor. Scenario A: America loses because it caved in "terrorist" demands. Scenario B: America loses because it didn't take "terrorist" threats seriously and ended up being irresponsible.

How ya doing, buddy?

The thing really is that terrorism is an international threat and also internationally based. Therefore local policies in themselves are inept in combatting the phenomena. I actually mainly got this idea from a show of Law and Order I think. Anyway it was this protester girl.

How ya doing, buddy?

Yeah rereading it, it was vague. The point I suppose I wanted to bring across is that how does one bring down the support structures when these structures exist in other nations. It's not so easy when you add up the fact the immigration issue makes it very hard for all these nations to interact together. I just see it as too complex and probably the only thing thing US can probably do ATM is to restrict some freedoms.

Although I personally am against restriction of basic freedoms.

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

I guess the freedom expressed in the different shows we see. Freedom to protest (speech) , freedom from scrutiny, privacy, etc. Although I do see these more as infringement of personal right rather than necessary governmental action. It is what the government does seemingly want to project however. "Actions necessary to curtail terrorism."

The customs part is not related to freedom. Yeah diplomatic policy is necessary to attack the foundations of terrorism. But that won't exactly be as easy since some of the countries which have terrorist connections and bases are unwilling to deal with the Western world. The immigration policies are actually very good "distractions" for not wanting to interact with a country that is unwilling to accept other nations.

Theoretically it may be a bit of a stretch but I think that many countries are using this or any other similar tactics to defer from dealing with the US, britain or whatever.


Anyway I should probably address the other points.
There is probably no dispute in the terrorists winning thing. People have already become afraid and suppressed.

It's hard to think about what should've been about the episode. I personally believe that people have a choice whether to see the show anyway. And that people who find it offensive can just switch to another channel.

But it's difficult to let this action take its course because the world is very sensitive right now. You're not necessarily addressing only terrorism when you censor the segment. You're actually addressing the concerns of a people, religion, and inter-relations. It would be wiser to be on friendly terms with the people who might harbor ill feelings and potentially be fodder for terrorism. This actions does ensure that at least diplomatic relations won't be so sour over an episode (like over a certain set of cartoons).

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

Originally Posted by Bradylama

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?

This isn't my argument really it's just what I saw on TV. Anyway I believe these were the issues.

People cannot be as free as before. Data mining takes place because there is a need to know of potential terrorist threats existing in the neighborhood. This curtails the right to privacy.

People can't voice out freely because this might impede government action. It's the same line of thinking as "you're either with us or against us". When the government is undermined it loses efficiency in dealing with terrorism. We can relate this as protesting data mining. I can't be afforded that freedom because it undermines the government.

We need stricter rules and regulations because this allows better inspection of people. People with "terrorist" leanings are better known and can be eaiser dealt with.

How ya doing, buddy?

Hehe ... well those are probably just the governmental inconsistencies and flaws in action.

I do consider the South Park as good diplomatic action at the moment because it may trigger another string of protest rallies and unfortunate oppression. In this scenario its just more ethical and better to abide by non-malificence.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

No... just a twang of insanity coming out.

Anyway seriously ... I never wanted to defend curtailment of freedom.

So I'll clarify:
The South Park episode is more than just an issue of freedom. It's an issue of ethics and more than that diplomatic relations. The cencorship was fine because it was the ethical course of action to take plus it ensured that no further course of action would have been taken. Seriously, after having been offended and still raging over the danish cartoons you want to feed the fire even more?

FELIPE NO

http://www.abc.net.au/message/proper/med_protocol.htm

Has some ethical considerations for this.
"1. Publishers and broadcasters should not distribute material that is likely to incite or perpetuate hatred against, severely ridicule or incite serious contempt for, a person or group based on the reason that the person is an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander or the group is composed of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islanders."

you can just change the aboriginals to whatever sector.

As for the question, I can't really answer at this point. Too many considerations. (although I'm leaning towards life Atm)

How ya doing, buddy?

You guys don't really get it do you? This is a very different circumstance as was pointed out earlier. Did anyone poke fun at 9/11 right after it happened. Imagine South Park making fun of Bush right after the tragedy? I doubt that would be the right thing to do. And I would think that they refrain because guess what it would be their fellow Americans that their targetting.

The earlier episodes of Muhammed wasn't exactly hot before because there was no Danish outrage. This freedom clause is causing just a cycle of violence and insults. I don't expect any resolution to come of it if it were to continue.

There have always been protesters about South Park (Jews, Scientologists, etc.) The only difference with this time is that the Muslim body has managed to amass a greater number than before. This incident is just way bigger and more sensotove than previous years.

Should there be special treatment for Muslims? Hmm... the first question is: should they be judged using American standards? Considering that they're in a way different culture I don't this wholly applies. The freedom clause to them is an insult to their race and class. They don't see it as expression due to their very different culture and environment.

I couldn't believe that there was an earlier generalization that majority of Muslims wanted to destroy Americans. This is the exact sentiment that Muslims and people around the world are against. It's racial prejudice in action. And no matter how much people rally nothing would be resolved.

Bradylama earlier pointed out that diplomacy was the key. I agree yet the way that press freedom and oppression are being forced down each other's throats it's as if diplomacy was not a possibility.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by PattyNBK

Well I have a definite problem when a culture is so open about human rights violations and mistreatment of women. That is a bit personal for me. That, however, is real. South Park is not. See the difference? If South Park made fun of women (which it has), then fine, I have no problem with it. It is a work of fiction. I am far more interested in stopping cultures that commit real atrocious acts against women in reality than I am in stopping a cartoon from hurling insults.

As the saying goes, sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me. In the case of Muslims, those stones kill women who violate religious law.

Again, this is a generalization on the part of the Muslim community. Not every Muslim community is such and many take offense at such incidences. BTW the film Osama has a great depiction of violence against women in Afghanistan (some time ago).

Also this is a bit complex since that aspect which you cited as an example is more of an universal human right while the so-called utility of press freedom has ended up as a planned insulting lashing to the Muslim community (also it's an entirely different issue). Democracy allows that we have basic freedoms that do not infringe upon the rights of others. In this case the freedom from persecution and whatever.

Originally Posted by PattyNBK

That is not racism, it is reality. If it were not, how would Hamas, a known terrorist organization, get such a strong following in Palestine, which happens to have the full support of the rest of the Islamic community? The proof is in the pudding, as it were. If they want to stop giving off this "die die die" vibe toward us, they need to stop blatantly backing terrorist groups!
I may be more or less Atheist, but AMEN TO THAT!

Again not true. We actually have governements like Jordan ending up being the targets of terrorism because they are unwilling to support the terrorist cause.

There's nowhere I can't reach.