Freedom to mock the Islamic Prophet

Blackflag: So are you saying that since Islam bashing and Homosexual bashing are close to the same thing, both should be protected? Are you saying both should not be protected?


Should we have the 'right' to mock Mohammed? Sure.

Should we do it just because we can? Knowing it will offend people needlessly (and not actually discuss Islam)? Probably not.

Should we have the 'right' to mock homosexuals? Sure.

Should we do it just because we can? Knowing it will offend people needlessly (and not actually discuss homosexuality or sexuality in general?) Probably not.

It really would help if you read what I wrote before asking the question.

And your position? As the guy who introduced this is?

admin: gree0232: OK, but you didn't answer my question, just re-asserted that there isn't. I'm asking a hypothetical of you.

If you make a genetic claim, then you have to use genetic evidence, and that would be the accepted form of evidence. The Human Genome has been mapped - there is no 'gay gene'. I have seen most of the studies, and what is usually produced is a random correlations in initial studies of a population, and then in subsequent studies ... they cannot find the same correlation. That points to corrections that can be ascribed to random populations. For example, you pull 100 men, and the gay ones appear to have a higher tendency to baldness. The next batch of a hundred produces the opposite. There have been many, many studies like this - and none has stood up or it would lead to the thing that would be genetic evidence ....

There is, for example a bald gene, so the correlation above, if sample X,Y,Z etc all showed the same correlation, then you could trace it down to the genetic sequence.

To date, that missing sequence is ... well, missing.

But yes, if you can find the DNA sequence that you can turn on and off to make someone gay or not, then I would certainly accept it. Just as I would expect you to accept a Christian gene that I could turn on and off that would make you a believer!

Heck, pedophiles are hoping you find these sexuality genes, because that would make thing MUCH, MUCH easier for them. That just isn't how sexuality works.

So why shouldn't we mock the flaming homos? Why is homophobia bad, but not Islamophobia?

gree0232: OK. But I wasn't asking if you'd accept it. I was asking if you'd agree my argument was otherwise correct. Like, is it really your only objection that homosexuality is not genetic so we should be allowed to mock it?

admin: OK. But I wasn't asking if you'd accept it. I was asking if you'd agree my argument was otherwise correct. Like, is it really your only objection that homosexuality is not genetic so we should be allowed to mock it?

Te problem is that I don;t think its correct at all. I think it is an artificial barrier whose intent is to get around a standard that, IMHO, should not be gotten around. Its rationalization for a different standard that applies a lack of respect and dignity to one group (indeed invites it) while condemning it on the other. That is generally a bad thing, but when the prime directive (sorry for going star trek) is that freedom of speech is inviolate ... to induce a ... quibble ... and exception. Is dangerous in the extreme.

Again, the KKK is a full on hate group, they have limits however, they are not allowed to run around foaming at the mouth and generally being hooligans. Its called disturbing the peach. So hey have a right to their speech, but they also have limits because what they advocate is so destructive. I think rabid homophobia fits neatly into that same category. I think rabid Islamophobia fits neatly into that category as well. Its the irrationality of the position, the intent to stir up, that makes the 'delineation'.

Let me demonstrate it to you thusly: Why are we mocking the Prophet?

If the point is to confront the prohibition of images of the Prophet, they ... well, we are proving the Muslim point.

Yet the reality of the Islamic point is that they did not want 'images' of the Prophet to be worshipped in place of God. Yet that was a command given 1400 years ago. Why has no Westerner simply made a movie about the Prophet? Detailed his life and times, shown the struggles he went through? Its really an amazing story - and confronting Muslims with a 'graven image' that shows their Prophet accurately and the reasons he is so revered? Including a scenic where he makes the delineation, much like Christians do with ... Ahem Moses? That might be though provoking.

No one is doing that.

Why then are people mocking the Prophet? Probably the same reason that people mock Jews. And Homosexuals ...

gree0232: So your counter-argument for why my standard is bad is because it's artificial (I don't think so but you don't justify it beyond that either). Your standard ("disturbing the peace") is equally artificial. That just makes no sense.

I'm not going to get carried away into a discussion about whether sexuality is genetic in this thread sorry. Do that on another thread.

admin: So your counter-argument for why my standard is bad is because it's artificial (I don't think so but you don't justify it beyond that either). Your standard ("disturbing the peace") is equally artificial. That just makes no sense.

I'm not going to get carried away into a discussion about whether sexuality is genetic in this thread sorry. Do that on another thread.

The idea is that people are rational. Have you ever been on a forum that, in the name of free speech, not just tolerated but protected KKK members and others? It generally disintegrates quickly and I have seen it destroy entire boards. (Like literally, they no longer exist). We KNOW that some people are simply not 'communicating' with the intent of harmony.

Its why you can't yell BOMB in a crowded room. It's why you cannot threaten to kill people. Its why slander and libel are criminal. Its why Hate Speech is identifiable and legally regulated.

Why? Free speech is sacrosanct, correct? You should be able to threaten to kill people. Its just speech. The problem is that this speech conveys a specific act and threat, and guess what Islamophobic speech conveys? A threat to a group of people. Just as the KKK does to Jews and African Americans. Sosa group coming into town and raising cain about the inferiority of blacks and Jews .... likely to draw a response from the community. A negative one. One that would lead to violence. The same goes for Homophobic slurs, the intent is digression, dehumanization, and eventually ... violence. The same for Islamophobes.

Its destructive. Constantly mocking a group of people is not 'discourse' its mocking, and eventually it reaps what it sews. The movie Milk pops immediately into mind.

The law is not artificial, it quite real. Again, you can say whatever you want privately, even threaten to kill the President in your own room while screaming into a pillow. No one cares. You go out in public and do it? People start to care.

So that serves the ball into your court. If homosexuality is what you think makes the delineation, then you either have to support it - or find another way of making the delineation. Charismatic speakers can do a lot with Hat speech - Hilter ....

gree0232: It's not what I think makes the delineation though. This is a straw man. My argument was that a person's (unchanging) traits should be held to a different standard than their beliefs. This would be my standard regardless of which category homosexuality would fall into.

admin: OK ... why?

We fought the 30 years war specifically to make it wrong to do what you are now asking.

There is also a part I think you are missing. I believe that you are an atheist (not that there is anything wrong with that), but many atheists struggle to understand the depth of genuine faith. You cannot change it. Men will literally die rather than convert If you attempt to, throughout history, you have the worse fights you have ever had in history. We as a society have long understood this and the consequence of splitting it off as different, and that is why its illegal to discriminate based on race, sex, color, or creed. Disability. Heck my status as a veteran is a protected status. Having seen war ... I am a vet, can't change that at all.

Yet here you are that it is different ... and fundamentally should be treated differently as well.

It is just as damaging to mock Muslims as it is to mock black men as it is to mock homosexuals. The delineation that one of these is ... allowable. Is troubling.

admin: If you really want to look at it it is actually hypocritical of the Muslims to be up in arms over this. Especially if you've seen Islamic protrayal of Jews (or Joos is the new rascist spelling of it apparently) you can see that what the Muslims do is way worse than any drawling that I have ever seen of Mohommad.

admin: Oh man. The guy who created this site thinks I'm scum?
Who do I report you to for sensitivty training?

I don't think you are using the word deinigrate correctly in this context if you are trying to persuade. But if you want to live your life hating a couple billion people. It must be quite a life you've had sir. Having all that hate reserved for Islam. Is it legitimate in America? I assume it is. (I am assuming you are American).

Teaistooshort: I'm not, I'm from New Zealand.

I don't denigrade Islam at all. I don't agree with certain views people may hold, but I do defend their right to say them. I actually don't mind Islam, but if somebody else wants to mock it, then I'm fine with that too.

admin: I was joking . I am so bad at those. I will let myself out now.
Are you saying it is a non-issue for you? I don't think you would be defending the guy spewing hate speech irl.

Teaistooshort: No worries, my fault for misinterpreting

It's an issue for me that some people want to restrict free speech because somehow apparently that improves religious tolerance! Just sounds daft to me.

admin: Well I do not know about improving tolerance. A silent racist is still a racist. It is nice though having a goverment body say that they want religious tolerance and will do daft things to make it happen.

Teaistooshort: Religious tolerance isn't something that should be legislated. It's the culture of religious hatred that needs to change.

admin: And how will that happen? Will they listen to their peers? Someone of authority needs to flick them in the nose and tell them: No! bad!

Although I am not sure it is a culture of hatred, but rather one of fear mongering.

Teaistooshort: Fear mongering is the product of hatred.

It's like with teenage drinking. In my country there is no drinking age, and it's up to parents to teach kids to drink responsibly. Some do, some fail. But this way teens don't feel like they're being held to account - it's not "cool" for being "illegal". When the government tells people not to hate Muslims, the people hate Muslims for taking away their freedoms. Go figure.

admin: I am not entirely certain that the truism is correct. People spread biased views on a subject and then the hate commences. imho.

I would question their judgement on the no drinking age. Basing decisions on what teenagers "believe".

I doubt people would hate muslims if the govt said: be religiously tolerant.

Teaistooshort: I am not entirely certain that the truism is correct.
It is a truism, it is always correct

Religious tolerance isn't something that should be legislated. It's the culture of religious hatred that needs to change.
You know, I have to agree. To many people try to fix problems deeply rooted in society through legislation. At the same time, I would request that the level of atheist intolerance towards religion decreases as well. It is bad when Muslims and Christians spur sectarianism, but when Atheists do it then its totally rad!

Teaistooshort: Biased views =/= hate more generally.

It forces older people to educate teens carefully. Again, some do, some don't. I won't deny there are alcohol problems. But they aren't worse than in countries where such freedoms do not exist.

If they criminalized being intolerant, I know I would hate all faiths and the government