Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 14 Sep '12 19:30
    I have absolutely no outrage at the movie that has made many Muslims upset. What I do have outrage over is the killings that resulted.

    Anyone who claims that the movie is wrong does not believe in the right to freedom of speech. Anyone who claims that person who made the movie is wrong for making the movie is simply an enabler. Way to go enabler guy (or girl), way to go.

    The failure to protect the US representative is sqarely on the US administration that failed to provide protection.
  2. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    14 Sep '12 19:48
    Originally posted by Eladar
    Anyone who claims that the movie is wrong does not believe in the right to freedom of speech.
    Surely claiming the film is "wrong" is an expression of freedom of speech?
  3. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    14 Sep '12 19:54
    Originally posted by Eladar
    I have absolutely no outrage at the movie that has made many Muslims upset. What I do have outrage over is the killings that resulted.

    Anyone who claims that the movie is wrong does not believe in the right to freedom of speech. Anyone who claims that person who made the movie is wrong for making the movie is simply an enabler. Way to go enabler guy (or ...[text shortened]... ect the US representative is sqarely on the US administration that failed to provide protection.
    The jerk not only made a movie deliberately offensive to Muslims, but then had it translated into Arabic just so he could stick it on YouTube and have Muslims in the Middle East see it, understand it and be insulted by it. Surely one can say he bears some moral responsibility for the predictable consequences of his actions even if one condemns the violence.
  4. 14 Sep '12 19:56
    Originally posted by FMF
    Surely claiming the film is "wrong" is an expression of freedom of speech?
    Of course it is, but claiming the right to murder over a bad movie isn't free speech.
  5. 14 Sep '12 19:57
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    The jerk not only made a movie deliberately offensive to Muslims, but then had it translated into Arabic just so he could stick it on YouTube and have Muslims in the Middle East see it, understand it and be insulted by it. Surely one can say he bears some moral responsibility for the predictable consequences of his actions even if one condemns the violence.
    You say many things here that predictably will be offensive. What is your moral responsibility?
  6. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    14 Sep '12 19:58
    Originally posted by normbenign
    Of course it is, but claiming the right to murder over a bad movie isn't free speech.
    Who is saying that claiming the right to murder over a bad movie is free speech?
  7. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    14 Sep '12 20:03 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by normbenign
    You say many things here that predictably will be offensive. What is your moral responsibility?
    Learn how to read. What are the "predictable consequences" of what I post here? sh76 will cry and you will look like a fool. Other than that, I don't see any.

    Deliberately targeting a Muslim audience in the Middle East with a film that depicts the prophet Mohammad in an insulting manner is certain to lead to the type of demonstrations we have seen. The filmmaker, unless he is as bereft of his senses as you are, surely knew this; in fact, the evidence seems to indicate he desired it. Therefore, he bears some degree of moral responsibility.
  8. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Poor Filipov :,(
    14 Sep '12 20:21
    He claimed the USA, Israel, Judaism and Coptic (Egyptian) Christianity.

    He wanted us to get hit. As an American I'm pissed at him. If I were a Jew, or Egyptian, or Christian, or Israeli, I'd be even more pissed.
  9. 14 Sep '12 20:35
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    The jerk not only made a movie deliberately offensive to Muslims, but then had it translated into Arabic just so he could stick it on YouTube and have Muslims in the Middle East see it, understand it and be insulted by it. Surely one can say he bears some moral responsibility for the predictable consequences of his actions even if one condemns the violence.
    But there is nothing wrong with that, just as there is nothing wrong with art insulting Jesus and Christian symbols.
  10. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Poor Filipov :,(
    14 Sep '12 20:38 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Eladar
    But there is nothing wrong with that, just as there is nothing wrong with art insulting Jesus and Christian symbols.
    Insult the Corps in a bar full of drunken Marines and they'll probably beat you down. It's not something specific to Arab Muslims.

    Look what happened with the Zoot Suit riots.
  11. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    14 Sep '12 20:51
    Originally posted by Eladar
    But there is nothing wrong with that, just as there is nothing wrong with art insulting Jesus and Christian symbols.
    There is something morally wrong with doing something when you know that it will cause other people to get hurt or killed esp. when you do it for the purpose of provoking violence. No, he shouldn't go to jail but he should realize that he did something wrong even if you can't.
  12. 14 Sep '12 21:12
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    There is something morally wrong with doing something when you know that it will cause other people to get hurt or killed esp. when you do it for the purpose of provoking violence. No, he shouldn't go to jail but he should realize that he did something wrong even if you can't.
    All moral outrage should be directed at those who resort to violence. There should be no moral symapthy for those who cannot recognize that different views will be expressed in movies.
  13. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    14 Sep '12 21:16
    Originally posted by quackquack
    All moral outrage should be directed at those who resort to violence. There should be no moral symapthy for those who cannot recognize that different views will be expressed in movies.
    I disagree with such a platitude for reasons already given. Someone who goes out of their way to incite violence for no good reason should be morally condemned. That issue has nothing to do with the red herring of "moral sympathy" for those who resort to violence in response to said incitement.
  14. 14 Sep '12 21:34 / 6 edits
    Originally posted by Eladar
    I have absolutely no outrage at the movie that has made many Muslims upset. What I do have outrage over is the killings that resulted.

    Anyone who claims that the movie is wrong does not believe in the right to freedom of speech. Anyone who claims that person who made the movie is wrong for making the movie is simply an enabler. Way to go enabler guy (or ...[text shortened]... ect the US representative is sqarely on the US administration that failed to provide protection.
    We have the right in the U.S. to make a movie depicting any prophet including Jesus Christ, for example, as a violent lunatic and raging pedophile, as was done in this controversial lame move directed to the other prophet.

    At some point, however, the movie could be made more obscene and become too obscene (a fuzzy standard) and thus become problematic or illegal and not protected by the First Amendment. Further, showing Jesus Christ having graphic sex with children (actual child actors) would be child porn and thus likely illegal.

    A graphic incestuous orgy between Joseph, Mary, and Jesus, without any bestiality or too much humiliation or any child actors, would likely be ok.
  15. 14 Sep '12 21:36
    Originally posted by no1marauder to quackquack
    I disagree with such a platitude for reasons already given. Someone who goes out of their way to incite violence for no good reason should be morally condemned. That issue has nothing to do with the red herring of "moral sympathy" for those who resort to violence in response to said incitement.
    In my view, a critical difference between this anti-Islamic video and
    Salman Rushdie writing _The Satanic Verses_ was that Salman Rushdie
    sincerely did not expect to provoke a popular hostile reaction to his work.
    This video seems to have been produced for the purpose of inciting violence.

    By the way, I have heard diverse views from Muslims about The Satanic Verses.
    One said that he had read the book and did not regard it as blasphemous, yet
    he preferred to keep his opinion to himself. Some said that they regarded the
    book as offensive, yet they accepted that other people had the right to read it.
    And some said that Salman Rushdie was foolish enough to bring his troubles
    onto himself, so they hardly would care if something bad happened to him.
    The Muslims who drew the most attention in the media, however, were the ones
    who liked to say that they should be pleased and proud to kill Salman Rushdie.