Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (181259)	2/6/2006 1:48:43 PM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

Hi Hawkmoon; Re: "But if you say something to someone that you KNOW is going to be offensive and will strike that person at their spiritual or personal level, then you have to expect people to react, often in a manner that you think is uncalled for. That's because people are emotional, as well as rational, beings." This is true and very practical advice, but on the other hand, one should expect that when revenge is taken by the other side it should be exacted against the offender rather than people who are just unlucky to be his countrymen. -- Carl

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (181259)	2/6/2006 2:16:09 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I'm not against the 1st amendment. But if you say something to someone that you KNOW is going to be offensive and will strike that person at their spiritual or personal level, then you have to expect people to react, often in a manner that you think is uncalled for. The "fighting words" doctrine is being whittled away by the USSC. Message 22137845 I'd suggest you keep your hands to yourself or you may find yourself in the dock being sued for battery. And granted, violence is not called for and should not be tolerated. Then how can the torching of embassies- -which the host country has a duty to protect- -be tolerated? But if you're going to call someone I love a dirty name, or make fun of her, then expect that you may just get popped in the mouth for your efforts. (that's an analogy, btw). And you may expect a whopper of a suit for your efforts. And there IS a difference between insulting a loved one of yours and a religios figure dead some 1300 years. The Muslims have shown no restraint in insulting Jews. Why does your doctrine not apply then? Ask yourself what those cartoons were trying to convey. That Muhammad was a terrorist. And that by default, all muslims are terrorists. All? I'd question that. But how many Buddhist suicide bombers can you name? Is that "thought-provoking", or pure defamation of character of a spiritual leader in a particular belief system. Does it matter? Is it the right of Muslims in the ME to dictate the content of Western newspapers? Since when? If they claim such a right, I'd say it's time for US to fight! I cited earlier the "art piece" that consisted of a crucifex with Jesus on it in a jar of urine. Certainly insulting to Christians. Yet it was made in the West and provoked no riots or torchings and no deaths and is within the limits of free speech in the West. There were plenty of ways to convey a message that there is extremism in the religion. Why couldn't they have had one where Muhammad was weeping over how militants have blashpemed Islam?? And exactly who are YOU to tell a Danish paper what it can and cannot publish? Btw, it's irrelevant whether Muhammad met the criteria of "terrorist" since that was a different time and era, with different value systems. If people choose to believe that Muhammad was peaceful and would be extremely disturbed over how militancy it taking over Islam, then we should promote that belief. That hardly seems to be the point of the torchings and riots. Their point seems to be that they consider a Danish paper to have insulted their prophet and that images of their prophet are verboten (in spite of the fact that Muslims have produced such themselves with no consequences). I certainly have no problems with building up Muhammad as a man of peace and non-violence. Because those values will be conveyed and instilled into those who practice the religion. You honestly think Osama is going to listen? Really? Islam has repeatedly been proclaimed a religion of peace by its leaders previously, yet that seems to have had no effect on him or his organization.

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (181259)	2/6/2006 2:24:04 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Respond to of 281500

Message 22137966