South Park vs Religion

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?

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."

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

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.

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

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

Are you high?

I was speaking idiomatically.

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?

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

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.

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?

restrictions on freedom on citizens is about as useful as gun control laws; they only work on law-abiding citizens! As such, the only ones affected are law-abiding citizens. Terrorists are criminals (violent ones at that), and criminals, by their very nature, break the law and find ways around law enforcement. I deal with criminals every day, I should know. Laws that restrict the freedoms of law-abiding citizens have absolutely zero impact on criminals.

Just like criminals can still get guns as easily today as they could a hundred gun control bills ago, so too can terrorists communicate as well today as before all this nonsense got started.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Quote:

restrictions on freedom on citizens is about as useful as gun control laws; they only work on law-abiding citizens! As such, the only ones affected are law-abiding citizens. Terrorists are criminals (violent ones at that), and criminals, by their very nature, break the law and find ways around law enforcement. I deal with criminals every day, I should know. Laws that restrict the freedoms of law-abiding citizens have absolutely zero impact on criminals.

Just like criminals can still get guns as easily today as they could a hundred gun control bills ago, so too can terrorists communicate as well today as before all this nonsense got started.

The biggest mistake you keep making however is that this is a governmental ban. It's not, its a company deciding that it doesn't want to get involved in a very, very contentious issue.

Stop acting like a company exercising common sense means the US has caved to terrorist demands. It's nothing of the sort, its merely the company being logical and sensitive when its an issue that triggers such responces.

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.

BTW, just as some additional info...

Muhammed was visually shown in another South Park episode (the one with the religious Super Friends), so it's not like we haven't seen his image on the show before.

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

Originally Posted by JazzFlight

BTW, just as some additional info...

Muhammed was visually shown in another South Park episode (the one with the religious Super Friends), so it's not like we haven't seen his image on the show before.

Exactly! That's one of the things that always got to me. That episode first aired YEARS ago and there were no riots, no boycotting, no documented backlash of any kind. (It's easy to see I'd be blatantly wrong if I said there was no backlash whatsoever.)

Why does the world suddenly care so much what two men with a cartoon have to say? If they hate America so much, they shouldn't waste their time with American cartoons!

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by Adamgian

So as an American living in Saudi Arabia, fuck you Trey Parker and Matt Stone. Thank god Comedy Central is more competent than you imbeciles.

Cute. You're saying "fuck you" to somebody while holding the opinion that they can't do the same.

Your integrity just flew right out the fucking window, kid. Good luck getting it back.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by Adamgian

So as an American living in Saudi Arabia...

My appologies if you've answered this before, but how long have you been in Saudi Arabia and why are you there?

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by PattyNBK

So wait, you think that because we're threatened with violence, we should cave in to specific demands? There's a word for that . . . What was it again . . . ? Oh, yeah, that's right, terrorism.

I will make this very easy for you since you are obviously some kind of robot that does not know how to differentiate between emotions.

Terror.
Deference.
Respect.

And none of this yet has addressed the fact that people are printing Muhammad not for any legitimate reason, but because they want to. Even the first cartoons were done "just because." The only reason it's become an issue is because people don't like hearing that others would prefer they not do something. It's the mentality of a 4 year old. Tell them to stay out of the cookie jar and it immediately puts the thought into their head.

It also seems to me that a lot of people had their chance in the beginning to avoid violent conflict, but by appearing to encourage disrespectful behavior, (duh) things escalated.

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

Originally Posted by Adamgian

The biggest mistake you keep making however is that this is a governmental ban. It's not, its a company deciding that it doesn't want to get involved in a very, very contentious issue.

I never said it was a governmental ban.

Originally Posted by Adamgian

Stop acting like a company exercising common sense means the US has caved to terrorist demands. It's nothing of the sort, its merely the company being logical and sensitive when its an issue that triggers such responces.

How is it not caving in to terrorist threats? Cartoons mock everything from Catholics to the President without threats of "we want to destroy you" and riots. Why should the Muslims be treated differently? What makes them so special that they should get special treatment? Jesus is as sacred to Christians as Muhammad is to Muslims, but the most they do is gripe about things and such, they don't fill the streets in protest. The worse Christians ever do is boycott something into the ground (like they did with Book of Daniel), while the Muslims want to see us tarred and feathered for it and would like to see us destroyed (not just for this, mind you, but still, I'm sure you get what I'm trying to say here).

So why, pray tell, do they deserve special treatment?

Originally Posted by Skexis

I will make this very easy for you since you are obviously some kind of robot that does not know how to differentiate between emotions.

Terror.
Deference.
Respect.

Are people always this hostile and so quick to toss out attacks around here? Your attempt was decent, but there's no meat to it.

Originally Posted by Skexis

And none of this yet has addressed the fact that people are printing Muhammad not for any legitimate reason, but because they want to. Even the first cartoons were done "just because." The only reason it's become an issue is because people don't like hearing that others would prefer they not do something. It's the mentality of a 4 year old. Tell them to stay out of the cookie jar and it immediately puts the thought into their head.

It also seems to me that a lot of people had their chance in the beginning to avoid violent conflict, but by appearing to encourage disrespectful behavior, (duh) things escalated.

No legitimate reason? These people use their religion as an excuse to hate us, with a good chunk of them wanting to see us destroyed. The Danish comics just illustrated the ignorance of such thinking. As for the South Park episodes in question, it was making a statement against censorship, nothing more, nothing less. You may not think that's important, but it is. This is the Constitution of the United States we're talking about here. Freedom of speech is part of the 1st Amendment, meaning the founding fathers must have thought it was mighty important. By treating them differently, we're literally caving in to the demands of a specfic group of people.

It's like Kyle said on the episode (and it did have an important message, more important than any dumb reality show ever has): if we let this group have their way, then we have to let the next group have their way, and so on and so forth. Soon everyone else is running the show instead of the creators, and freedom of speech thus perishes. Caving in to these demands, as such, is just not right.

Many people have died protecting these freedoms we have. I myself lost my father at a young age in war. I myself would be willing to die to make sure these people don't win and don't put their personal beliefs on us. You simply can't make light of that, sorry.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by PattyNBK

Many people have died protecting these freedoms we have. I myself lost my father at a young age in war.

And you'd be a fool to believe that the wars that are fought are entirely 'for the freedom of the US'.

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.

Am I the only one here that finds the idea of wronging another (inflamatory media) to be ok, and the offended should just 'deal with it' attitude amusing? It's like, I can punch you in the nose, but there is nothing wrong with that, as you have the right to punch me right back. See? Everybody is happy in the end! Huh? What do you mean I didn't have a reason to punch you in the nose? I wanted to.

Now I'm all for freedom of speach, but I find the notion that it's not only one's right, but damn near one's duty to say inflamatory things and offend others as a really poor use of one's rights. Sure you can do it, but it doesn't make sense.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by PattyNBK

No legitimate reason? These people use their religion as an excuse to hate us, with a good chunk of them wanting to see us destroyed.

Sorry, but these people use your foreign policy as an "excuse" to hate you. They just happen to be religious people.

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?

I like how you guys find censorship (self-inflicted or otherwise) an acceptable response to people who are far too easily offended. Blowing shit up because someone made a joke about you shouldn't be any more acceptable than punching someone in the mouth for it.

The ridiculous thing is that Muhammed wasn't even made fun of.

I was speaking idiomatically.

It seems now that Muslims are a special protected group. Everyone and everything can be mocked and insulted with the exception of Muslims. The National Geographic special on the so called Gospel of Judas cuts at the core of who Jesus was and links him with the Gnostic movement of the first century. The DaVinci Code blatantly challenges the Bible's version of Christ, yet these are fully supported and played up by the press. Big headlines with the Gospel of Judas announced how this would challenge Christianity. But show an image of Mohammad...no we can't go there, someone might get their panties in a wad and go all postal.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

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

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by Wesker

It seems now that Muslims are a special protected group. Everyone and everything can be mocked and insulted with the exception of Muslims.

Didn't we already see the same development with african americans? It is bad to say nigger but at the same time, blacks are still the usual suspects when it comes to petty crime, deprived of equal career chances and so on.

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

Quote:

My appologies if you've answered this before, but how long have you been in Saudi Arabia and why are you there?

11 years, because my family is there for business.

Quote:

How is it not caving in to terrorist threats? Cartoons mock everything from Catholics to the President without threats of "we want to destroy you" and riots. Why should the Muslims be treated differently? What makes them so special that they should get special treatment? Jesus is as sacred to Christians as Muhammad is to Muslims, but the most they do is gripe about things and such, they don't fill the streets in protest. The worse Christians ever do is boycott something into the ground (like they did with Book of Daniel), while the Muslims want to see us tarred and feathered for it and would like to see us destroyed (not just for this, mind you, but still, I'm sure you get what I'm trying to say here).

So why, pray tell, do they deserve special treatment?

Because the situation is entirely different. The fact of the matter is, Muslims as a whole are currently lamblasted in the US media, many for no apparent reason. If the situation weren't as fragile, it wouldn't be as delicate of an issue. Hell, before 9/11, I wouldn't have objected at all. But the situation is entirely different, and thats why this issue can't fly.

Quote:

No legitimate reason? These people use their religion as an excuse to hate us, with a good chunk of them wanting to see us destroyed.

As was said above, its not religion, its foreign policy. Read what they say, they aren't attacking the US for being non-Islamic, on the contrary, they don't really give a damn, so long as the US stays out of their affairs. It's because of the US's support of Israel and the way it uses its army in the Gulf that causes problems.

Quote:

The ridiculous thing is that Muhammed wasn't even made fun of.

Being represented on South Park is considered an insult. I'm sure you can understand that.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Adamgian

11 years, because my family is there for business.

So you're willing to risk death for your business but not freedom?

Originally Posted by Adamgian

Being represented on South Park is considered an insult. I'm sure you can understand that.

Not really.

I do understand that (unless you're overly sensitive) there's nothing to be insulted by. Now, if they had done a spoof of Muhammed specifically defiling Islam, I could understand people being insulted. They didn't, so I don't.

There's nowhere I can't reach.