Quote:
Not really - they'd both be an opinion.
Among friends, the banter can at times be extremely derogatory and insulting - apparently, but the people concerned do not seem to betroubled by it.
Should we henceforth prosecute anyone who calls someone an a******e because it is insulting?
According to you, criticism would be ok, but insult wouldn't.
|
We aren't talking friends here, so you are taking my point entirely out of context.
Calling someone an a******e isn't a valid criticism. If they are rude, which makes them an a******e then calling them rude would be a criticism.
-----------------
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by homealone
if they were, then the act of re-publishing could be taken as insulting & confrontational?
...
but if you know it will actually cause offence & be taken as an insult, then you should be more wary of the implications??
|
Of course the cartoons were confrontational, as they were supposed to be. They were supposed to confront the aspects of Islam they wanted to criticise.
People shouldn't be too scared to confront parts of Islam they want to criticise, because of the reaction. That's precisely why they wanted to criticise their holier-than-thou position.
-----------------
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by MrAngry
Somehow I think the catholic church, Dan Brown and Corgi's lawyers might disagree with that.
|
And I think Rushie might disagree with that too. Theo Van Gogh might too if you could get hold of a medium. Brown doesn't have a death sentence on his head does he?
-----------------
Quote:
Actually where the insult begins was not when the cartoons were first published which could have been dismissed as merely lack of knowledge but the continued and sustained republishing and posting of the cartoons.
...
So to continue to post the cartoons once we have the understanding of the matter can be viewed as an attempt to really push at the bounderies of common sense into the area of sheer bluddy mindeness.It's very much a case of "in yer face matey" then is it not?If you push someone's buttons long enough what can you expect?
|
With respect Incog, you're missing the point i'm trying to make. The reason why they were reprinted wasn't to insult Muslims, they were to prove the criticism carried weight. If Muslims couldn't give a monkey's to the cartoons, then that would disprove the criticism. The fact they reacted precisely how th newspaper thought they would, shows that the newspaper had a point.
It comes down to a simple point: Do you think they Muslims were right to be insulted. You and Homer agree there were right. That's fine. I don't agree. I think its very wrong of them. I'm Christian, and you could say anything you like about Christianity, I really couldn't give a monkey's. Everyone I have asked about this (7-10 people who are commited Christian) have agreed. IMO its a problem with Islam, not a problem with freedom of speech.