Originally posted by torch71Well said. Unfortunately Some people just love to defend stupidity and evil. I guess some of them will make good defense lawywers for known killers.
Just curious, how do you campare a profit from a certain religion with the deaths of many thousand of innocent people of all walks of life and religion. There are many cartoons out there on Jesus, Pres. Bush, and just about anyone you want. So are you trying just to be a$$hole or what.
Got any cartoons saved of the Jews during the Holocaust? Or, how about the poor starving kids in Ethiopia, or maybe hatchet mutilations from Africa.
Originally posted by Rajk999I think the point of this thread is that most cultures have holy cows, if for different reasons. Proponents of free speech should support the right to publish jokes about 9/11 as much as Mohammad cartoons, however poor in taste. Right?
Well said. Unfortunately Some people just love to defend stupidity and evil. I guess some of them will make good defense lawywers for known killers.
Originally posted by torch71OF course I can compare. For you it's shocking to make a cartoon of WTC but I doubt you'd find this shocking:
Just curious, how do you campare a profit from a certain religion with the deaths of many thousand of innocent people of all walks of life and religion. There are many cartoons out there on Jesus, Pres. Bush, and just about anyone you want. So are you trying just to be a$$hole or what.
Got any cartoons saved of the Jews during the Holocaust? Or, how about the poor starving kids in Ethiopia, or maybe hatchet mutilations from Africa.
http://jakking.typepad.com/daily/images/iraq_cartoon.jpg
Again, the cartoon in the original post does not represent any sadistic elements, such as mutilated corpses. The implicit violence is that it makes a mockery of something that is considered an holy cow to your culture.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageFree speech proponents have a useful purpose, and anyone with some foresight who are able to see further than their nose should not discourge free speech, however distasteful.
I think the point of this thread is that most cultures have holy cows, if for different reasons. Proponents of free speech should support the right to publish jokes about 9/11 as much as Mohammad cartoons, however poor in taste. Right?
Whether or not cartoons, mohammed or 9/11, are in poor taste should be determined (in a democratic society) by societal norms. In New York today if a tasteless 9/11 cartoon was published it might offend many. Whereas the same cartoon published in Gaza might not.
Poor taste of one should not void the legal rights of many.
Originally posted by WajomaHere are the submissions!
"...the publisher of Tel-Aviv, Israel-based Dimona Comix, and founder of the contest jokes, “We’ll show the world we can do the best, sharpest, most offensive Jew hating cartoons ever published! No Iranian will beat us on our home turf!”
http://www.drawn.ca/2006/02/14/israeli-anti-semitic-cartoon-contest/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/amitai/sets/72057594067999377/
Originally posted by Rajk999That's true, but the right to freedom of speech trumps private taste and feelings. Muhammad pictures, 9/11 cartoons, in-your-face Gay Pride...NRA lunatics, Godhatesfags...can't do anything but deal with it--in a democratic society.
Whether or not cartoons, mohammed or 9/11, are in poor taste should be determined (in a democratic society) by societal norms. In New York today if a tasteless 9/11 cartoon was published it might offend many. Whereas the same cartoon published in Gaza might not.
Originally posted by PalynkaFor me it's not shocking, I just find it in poor taste, and took it as you need a little attention.
OF course I can compare. For you it's shocking to make a cartoon of WTC but I doubt you'd find this shocking:
http://jakking.typepad.com/daily/images/iraq_cartoon.jpg
Again, the cartoon in the original post does not represent any sadistic elements, such as mutilated corpses. The implicit violence is that it makes a mockery of something that is considered an holy cow to your culture.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageSo we agree.
That's true, but the right to freedom of speech trumps private taste and feelings. Muhammad pictures, 9/11 cartoons, in-your-face Gay Pride...NRA lunatics, Godhatesfags...can't do anything but deal with it--in a democratic society.
Let the fools publish what they want, and say whatever hurtful things they want.
Let the smart and strongminded people ignore the insults.
Its the only way.
Originally posted by Rajk999""In New York today if a tasteless 9/11 cartoon was published it might offend many. Whereas the same cartoon published in Gaza might not.""
Free speech proponents have a useful purpose, and anyone with some foresight who are able to see further than their nose should not discourge free speech, however distasteful.
Whether or not cartoons, mohammed or 9/11, are in poor taste should be determined (in a democratic society) by societal norms. In New York today if a tasteless 9/11 cartoon was publ ...[text shortened]... toon published in Gaza might not.
Poor taste of one should not void the legal rights of many.
""Poor taste of one should not void the legal rights of many.""
Rajk: Is it not true, If someone in New York were to tell an ethnic, racial, religous joke, at work or on radio or the tube, that person would be sacked?