DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: kimba1 on October 10, 2012, 12:44:28 PM
-
it`s not legal to yell fire at a theatre. but how different is that to making a muslim parody video?
-
The former can easily start a mass panic, causing injury if not death. The latter is simply "offensive" to certain folks. How they react is their choice. I was offended by the movie Dumb & Dumber. I reacted by not seeing it
Worlds of difference
-
Yelling fire in a theater is sure to produce panic.
Making that stupid film was very, very obnoxious and hateful and putting it on the Internet was very, very stupid.
On a scale where burning a flag in the VFW parking lot on Veterans' Day rates an 7 for stupidity, and Fred Phelps tells the relatives that the military relative deserved getting killed because God was punishing the country for allowing gays to go unpunished rates an 8, this rates a 9.
-
it`s not legal to yell fire at a theatre. but how different is that to making a muslim parody video?
Let's get the semantics out of the way. It is quite legal to yell fire in a theater especially if there is a fire. If there is no fire, that type of panic inducing speech is not protected.
The reason of course is that the safety of the theater goers outweighs the presumed protection of free speech.
If i read a story about someone yelling fire in a crowded theater it would not be reasonable nor customary for me to panic and in that panic do harm to myself or others. The story writer would be protected, as would my right to read such a story.
The thing is, i have to perform an action in order to read the story or view the youtube video. The outraged muslims were led to the outrageous video, apparently many months after it was first uploaded.
I don't see why the freedom to express should be curtailed because some people are offended by the expression. Nor do i see where the people who are offended have a right to dictate what the non offended can view.
-
Well Summized 8)
-
It does not make it a smart thing to do.
I agree that it was LEGAL to make the stupid film and to put it on YouTube, just as Fred Phelps' stupid actions are legal.
-
It does not make it a smart thing to do.
I agree that it was LEGAL to make the stupid film and to put it on YouTube, just as Fred Phelps' stupid actions are legal.
I don't think Kimba was asking whether it was smart. Though if The Mohammed trailer was stupid what does that make Mahers mockery of religion? And yes he included Islam.
-
The vid was with the meaning it would be a garunteed death involved if released.
most religious critique don`t have a death tag like islam has.
I wonder can any muslim say such a vid will not bring upon a death ?
-
Salman Rushdie has had a bounty for his death following him for decades. I don't think the contract has been collected upon as of this writing.
-
Bill Maher's film Religulous was a hoot, but it was not translated to Arabic, and it actually posed some serious philosophical questions as well. The video was obviously made with only the purpose of annoying Muslims. There was no thought put into it at all.
I got about half through Rushdie's "Satanic Verses", but it was simply boring to me. Perhaps if I shared more elements of Rushdie's life in India it would have been better.
I have enjoyed a couple of his short stories.
The Iranian fatwa against him was stupid. I am glad they were unable to collect the bounty on him.
-
I remember satanic verses and personally recalling a few muslim teens on porpose buying that book in protest of islam since they would be dead if they didn't move to america.
I believe they were iranian.
I maybe wrong but didn't the iranian government cancel the reward on rushdie's head decades ago?
-
Bill Maher's film Religulous was a hoot, but it was not translated to Arabic, and it actually posed some serious philosophical questions as well.
The film was released with Arabic subtitles
http://www.imdb.com/video/imdblink/vi2089747481/ (http://www.imdb.com/video/imdblink/vi2089747481/)
-
Bill Maher's film was not presented with the intent of trashing Islam, however. And by the way, "Arabic" is not exactly a language; it is more like a family of languages. Moroccans cannot understand Egyptians, Egyptians cannot understand the few Pakistanis who speak somne sort of "Koranic Arabic", either. Plus, literacy in Arabic speaking countries is rather low, and Maher's film deals in intellectual concepts. The fact it, it did not cause riots, so making it was not stupid.
Of course, the clown who made the "Innocence of Islam" trailer cannot be prosecuted in the US and I am not suggesting that. he was a deliberate troublemaker; the goal of the film was not to point out that it was unwise to be a Muslim; it was made to deliberately incite the more simple-minded Muslims to riot.
-
So the arabic that was used to subtitle the trailer that supposedly set the Islamic World on fire was understandable by just a few Arabs? And that is limited even further to those who can read.
mahers film was just an antitheist rant, no more valuable than Brassmarks or your digs at easter bunny believers.
The clowns film was nothing more than a dig at those Muslims who kill his coptic brethren. Not sure how he ends up the bad guy in this.
-
The trailer was dubbed, wasn't it?
The fact is that Maher was not deliberately trying to offend, and it was far more thoughtful than the trailer.
It is getting to be a waste of time to discuss this, because no one supports censoring anything or prosecuting anyone.
-
I have never met an antitheist who did not mean to offend. Offending is what differentiates them from atheists.
-
The trailer was dubbed, wasn't it?
The fact is that Maher was not deliberately trying to offend, and it was far more thoughtful than the trailer.
That's no fact in any way. How do you know that wasn't his intention? That's just a presumption. Mine is that he was deliberately offending all religion, by way of ridicule. Just because it was better produced doesn't make the ridicule any less offensive to those religions
-
Part of the diffrence is the times.
This is after the "Arab Spring" and there are new publics to manipulate.
I imagine somewhere someone wanting a good reason to be offended and useing a search engine all evening untill he has found the most offensive and stupid video he can get.
A guy doing that will indeed find something.
-
I have never met an antitheist who did not mean to offend. Offending is what differentiates them from atheists.
==========================================================
As rule most religions depend on miracles and illogical events for their justification. This is why nonbelievers are drawn to disbelieve.
Take the Doctrine of Original Sin:
We are all sinful by nature because an ancient ancestor took poor culinary advice from a talking snake. Therefore, we need to accept what was allegedly said by a Son of God, born of a virgin and written down 70 years after his death, and engage in weekly ritual cannibalism to confirm our belief.
That is the core of Christian belief. It clearly defies logic. Saying this offends those who dislike being accused of believing illogical nonsense.
There are surely better reasons to endeavor to lead a moral life that does not require talking reptiles, magical fruit, a virgin birth and ritual cannibalism .
The atheist simply says, "I reject this as illogical." Most atheists do not bother to even say this publicly. Some Jews ridicule Christians (read what Maimonides said about Jesus), Some Christians and Muslims ridicule one another.
Otherwise, all they can say it "our magic and miracles are true, yours are not".
Human beings are at their best when they think logically about most of our endeavors, but when it comes to religion, a lot of people are stuck in the Middle Ages.