Another fatwa on a cartoonist

[Peikko 1,575]

I believe my Questions wording has gotten far more play than deserved. It is absolutely ludicrous to read the slanderous opinions of what I intended and how I feel.

Still do carry on if it somehow deflects from the issue in point, death fatwas over even the suggestion of cartoons by Radical Muslims. All three of you know, well perhaps not Mad, I was attempting to get a narrow response from a specific group with an obviously interesting point of view on the matter. No more, no less.

Sof proves the point of being easily offended. MC blathers on about the wording before burying an answer at the end of a long post starting out once again with the wording. Mad stays in clueless character never quite getting over the wording faux issue and name calling. Wonderful.

Are you further adding to the mischief that you originally caused or are you attempting to actually argue the points you claim you wanted to argue all along? I do not judge anyone as a supporter of extremism for saying nothing on a message board. If someone wants to engage in the discussion about the merits of suggesting a cartoonist should not only not be surprised at the reaction of extremists but that she also deserves that reaction then for sure that supports an extremist view of how people can and should behave in America and I certainly do not support that for one moment.

[evli1966 88]

Are you further adding to the mischief that you originally caused or are you attempting to actually argue the points you claim you wanted to argue all along? I do not judge anyone as a supporter of extremism for saying nothing on a message board. If someone wants to engage in the discussion about the merits of suggesting a cartoonist should not only not be surprised at the reaction of extremists but that she also deserves that reaction then for sure that supports an extremist view of how people can and should behave in America and I certainly do not support that for one moment.

Actually nothing can be said about someone who does not post it is an assumption.

Just becasue they do not speak out does not mean they support it.

[Peikko 1,575]

Actually nothing can be said about someone who does not post it; is an assumption.

Just because they do not speak out does not mean they support it.

I agree therefore I do not assume anything. However, I was posting specifically in response to someone who said that the cartoonist was stupid for doing what she did, that she should have anticipated the reaction and that anything that happened to her because of it was therefore due - which without a post to the contrary I took as meaning 'deserved'.

While I agree that she might have anticipated the action, and in this case her action was inept (imo), I do not agree that that means that she is due, or deserves the reaction, ie the fatwa. In my opinion, if you say she was due or deserved the reaction I can not see how you are not supporting the extremist view that satire used to illustrate the folly in religion should be banned, whether or not you consider the punishment for going against it as proportionate or not.

That is a specific point aimed at a specific poster's position as I see it (though the conversation was ongoing and the poster may or may not agree). That does not mean that that poster is responsible for any harm that may or may not come to the cartoonist as a result of the issuing of the fatwa, it simply means that the poster appears to be in accordance with the intellectual position of the extremists; that one should not lampoon or satirize religious symbolism as it pertains to the muslim religion no matter what the intent of person doing so is.

How therefore have I implied that not speaking out (in general) has any meaning at all?

[evli1966 88]

I agree therefore I do not assume anything. However, I was posting specifically in response to someone who said that the cartoonist was stupid for doing what she did, that she should have anticipated the reaction and that anything that happened to her because of it was therefore due - which without a post to the contrary I took as meaning 'deserved'.

While I agree that she might have anticipated the action, and in this case her action was inept (imo), I do not agree that that means that she is due, or deserves the reaction, ie the fatwa. In my opinion, if you say she was due or deserved the reaction I can not see how you are not supporting the extremist view that satire used to illustrate the folly in religion should be banned, whether or not you consider the punishment for going against it as proportionate or not.

That is a specific point aimed at a specific poster's position as I see it (though the conversation was ongoing and the poster may or may not agree). That does not mean that that poster is responsible for any harm that may or may not come to the cartoonist as a result of the issuing of the fatwa, it simply means that the poster appears to be in accordance with the intellectual position of the extremists; that one should not lampoon or satirize religious symbolism as it pertains to the muslim religion no matter what the intent of person doing so is.

How therefore have I implied that not speaking out (in general) has any meaning at all?

I agree

I also agree not speaking out carries 0 weight in intentions and promotes false assumptions which is and has been proven to be adopted as a fact; where as those who had the chance to speak and did not have no right to claim foul when the wrong assumption is made.

[Peikko 1,575]

I agree

I also agree not speaking out carries 0 weight in intentions and promotes false assumptions which is and has been proven to be adopted as a fact; where as those who had the chance to speak and did not have no right to claim foul when the wrong assumption is made.

I did not say the bolded, nor do I agree with it, particularly if you are referring to VJ as an 'opportunity to speak out' I think it is completely inappropriate to ascribe anything to the inaction of those who are members of message board communities. Frankly, VJ is not an appropriate platform to demand anything of anyone - nor should assumptions be made about any member who does not afford themselves of this particular 'opportunity to speak'. It's more of the same, demanding a particular group jumps through hoops because the default position is that they are guilty until proven innocent. Rubbish, that is not an American ideal, nor should it ever be one.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

MC you need to get off the silly made up demand faux controversy. You come close to coherent posting then back to an issue you invented and fomented.

Not a demand merely a suggestion.

[Peikko 1,575]

MC you need to get off the silly made up demand faux controversy. You come close to coherent posting then back to an issue you invented and fomented.

Not a demand merely a suggestion.

Care to actually engage in the ongoing discussion or do you prefer to simply make these helpful 'suggestions'? All my recent posts have been direct responses to specific posts. I have not refereed to you at all, or the things you have posted, mostly because you haven't posted anything beyond accusations or your personal opinion as to whether a post has merit without adding any thing at all. Do you really think that posters can't work out for themselves which posts have merit and which not? Perhaps you should engage in the actual discussion at hand? Not a demand, merely a suggestion.

Edited September 20, 2010 by Madame Cleo

[evli1966 88]

I did not say the bolded, nor do I agree with it, particularly if you are referring to VJ as an 'opportunity to speak out' I think it is completely inappropriate to ascribe anything to the inaction of those who are members of message board communities. Frankly, VJ is not an appropriate platform to demand anything of anyone - nor should assumptions be made about any member who does not afford themselves of this particular 'opportunity to speak'. It's more of the same, demanding a particular group jumps through hoops because the default position is that they are guilty until proven innocent. Rubbish, that is not an American ideal, nor should it ever be one.

Absolutely not.

It is very insulting that you, mad, sometime soff, IP and others assume I am singling them out demanding anything of them.

Your own biased views and inability to use proper reading comprhension is appaling and to insinuate more than was written is ignorance on the part of ayone that does that.

With that said.

If a person was to speak out they should do so publicly or possibly through the actions of an organization which supports their views.

Simply stated inaction does nothing and those that do not act have no say in the outcome of events which may or may not affect them, their country, their religeon etc.

Edited September 20, 2010 by evli1966

[Peikko 1,575]

Absolutely not.

It is very insulting that you, mad, sometime soff, IP and others assume I am singling them out demanding anything of them.

Your own biased views and inability to use proper reading comprhension is appaling and to insinuate more than was written is ignorance on the part of ayone that does that.

With that said.

If a person was to speak out they should do so publicly or possibly through the actions of an organization which supports their views.

Simply stated inaction does nothing and those that do not act have no say in the outcome of events which may or may not affect them, their country, their religeon etc.

If you are not then that is fine, that seemed to be what you were saying, but if you are not then I am perfectly capable of admitting to being wrong and I do apologiize for an erroneous conclusion. I think it would also be helpful it you stick with it being my post that was insulting to you rather than lumping it in with all the perceived insults from all the other posters. I am not responsible for them nor them for me - we can all take responsibility for our own posts which really does aid clarity.

While I certainly agree that inaction does nothing, and not voting is one of the most heinous forms of inaction as regards ones social and civic responsibility, I personally would not suggest that someone who fails to act should from thenceforward cease to have a say. I do not agree with that at all. Everyone should have the opportunity to jump right back in at any time and have the ability to change outcomes that they do not like.

[evli1966 88]

If you are not then that is fine, that seemed to be what you were saying, but if you are not then I am perfectly capable of admitting to being wrong and I do apologiize for an erroneous conclusion. I think it would also be helpful it you stick with it being my post that was insulting to you rather than lumping it in with all the perceived insults from all the other posters. I am not responsible for them nor them for me - we can all take responsibility for our own posts which really does aid clarity.

While I certainly agree that inaction does nothing, and not voting is one of the most heinous forms of inaction as regards ones social and civic responsibility, I personally would not suggest that someone who fails to act should from thenceforward cease to have a say. I do not agree with that at all. Everyone should have the opportunity to jump right back in at any time and have the ability to change outcomes that they do not like.

And I apolgize for bursting out as I did.

You are right if at somepoint a person has had enough and begins to take action that is their right but to criticize how the events got to a certain point when they were not participating is more of what I should be saying regards to what they have no say in.

Moving forward being part of any change taking place afords them the right if you will to debate back or reject criticism of what ever even they are working torwards or for.

Night all I need to be up in 5 hours for a flight. wohoo Texas here I Come.

Edited September 20, 2010 by evli1966

[Peikko 1,575]

Fair enough. No harm done.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

Care to actually engage in the ongoing discussion or do you prefer to simply make these helpful 'suggestions'? All my recent posts have been direct responses to specific posts. I have not refereed to you at all, or the things you have posted, mostly because you haven't posted anything beyond accusations or your personal opinion as to whether a post has merit without adding any thing at all. Do you really think that posters can't work out for themselves which posts have merit and which not? Perhaps you should engage in the actual discussion at hand? Not a demand, merely a suggestion.

Nice of you to join so late in the discussion...