Draw Mohammed - My Personal Opinion and Involvement

[quote name='IRHari']You're drew your pic to show those crazy Muslims that their violence won't silence you. You end up offending every Muslim who sees your racist cartoon.[/QUOTE]

While I'm not sure how it's racist, I can say that more than just Muslims are offended by this.
 
[quote name='KrAzY3']Fire with fire? Are you comparing drawing pictures or holding signs to killing and trying to kill people? I thought I made it clear I planned on being peaceful...
If all that was done is people carried signs with offensive messages, I would never have had any involvement at all with this. Protest all you want, be offended or offensive all you want that's fine, that's your right.

It's the violence part that prompted me to do something. Also, for the record the whole Draw Mohammed thing goes back to 2006, this isn't some recent thing or about South Park...[/QUOTE]
Yeah you're right this wasn't about South Park at all. You all just timed it to perfectly coincide with the backlash from that episode.

If you think I'm comparing death threats to drawing cartoons then your mind is of the type which I'm not going to be able to reach anyway.
 
[quote name='IRHari']You're drew your pic to show those crazy Muslims that their violence won't silence you. You end up offending every Muslim who sees your racist cartoon.[/QUOTE]
It did what I intended it to do. In fact, it did it in a larger scale than I expected. It was meant to offend and provoke, I always said it was deliberately offensive. However, I always explained myself and my viewpoint and reasons for doing it as well. It was not racist. It was deliberately simplistic, stereotypical and in truth a bit complimentary (his penis is as long as his arm), but not racist. To simplify, my attitude was, you want to kill people over a cartoon? Here's something that is offensive, learn to deal with it (as people of other religions have when they are mocked). I'm agnostic now, but as a child I was mocked for my religious beliefs. I didn't try to kill anyone and at the core of the issue that's all I'm asking of anyone else.

[quote name='UncleBob']While I'm not sure how it's racist, I can say that more than just Muslims are offended by this.[/QUOTE]
To be clear, I like a discussion of this issue. That's important, I don't mind and never have minded being called names or having people express their anger or offense with what I did. That's perfectly acceptable, that's a good thing! In fact, I'd be upset if it didn't offend people, it was deliberately offensive. All I am trying to do is explain why I thought it needed to be done. There's a principle being defended. It doesn't mean everyone should be happy with it!

[quote name='JolietJake']Yeah you're right this wasn't about South Park at all. You all just timed it to perfectly coincide with the backlash from that episode.

If you think I'm comparing death threats to drawing cartoons then your mind is of the type which I'm not going to be able to reach anyway.[/QUOTE]
I'm really not sure if you read what I said at all, either in my first post or otherwise. I clearly said I drew and "published" the stick figure in 2006. I did do it to coincide with something, but not the South Park episode! I'm not sure I can make that any more clear. Likewise, my "fire" (the image) was intended as a response to the violence of the time!

If you want my broader view, here's what I posted on my site in 2006:
I'm making this intentionally basic web page to convey my feelings about a issue I consider to be very important. A newspaper in Denmark published cartoons¹ of the "Prophet Mohammed". The reason they decided to publish them was because they felt that self-censorship was being practiced in regards to depicting Mohammed. As you may know, the Koran forbids depictions of Mohammed. The reaction to these cartoons on the part of some was deplorable. Kidnappings, beatings, death threats and violent protests occurred. Even peacefull demonstrations in the UK, for example have praised the 9/11 terrorists, and called for the "real" holocaust. The artists are now in fear for their lives. While a few newspapers in a few countries published the cartoons in a show of support for the free press, out of those newspapers two editors were fired and two countries in which those cartoons were published have publicly apologized (they should have no say over the free press so why should they answer for them?).

In my mind, this has gone well beyond a issue of how offensive the cartoons are, or whether or not they should have been published. They were published, and I feel it is a right of the free press to publish such things if they see fit. The problem in my mind is the thuggish behavior on the part of many Muslims. It is one thing to have a peaceful protest, it is another to threaten to kill people over a damned cartoon. Allow me to remind you about other things that offend certain religions. Hindus consider cows to be sacred. Every time you eat at McDonald's you are offending them in the worst manner possible. The Roman Catholic Church is against any form of birth control, put down that condom! Many Protestants teach that drinking alcohol is immoral, etc, etc, etc... We can not live our lives by the rules of all religions and the idea that one religion can trample on our way of life through violent means is in my mind most offensive of all.

I believe a stand should be taken, we can't let these bullies tell us how we can live our lives. If the free press of the world can be silenced so easily (as of yet not a single paper in the US or UK has ran these cartoons), then what is next? Free speech and freedom of expression is being attacked. As I said, the artists are going into hiding, countries and newspapers are apologizing. They are bowing to intimidation and violence. For every new web site that posts the cartoons another one backs down and removes them. If you have any doubt as to the sentiments of these extremists see for yourself:

This is not a fight that we can afford to lose. If the extremists feel they have won this fight they will be encouraged to further tell us what we can and can not do. If they can so easily silence the press and they are aware of this fact they will only become more violent and make more threats in the future. I implore everyone to take a stand and not let this issue die, lest they view it as a victory. Take up protest in your own way. Whether it be making your own drawing, posting the cartoons in your blogs or making your own web pages. Let it be known that you are not going to be intimidated and that you value your right to express yourself as you see fit. To any Muslims² that are viewing this. You no doubt are offended, and you have a right to be. I beg you to stop being the silent majority. Stand up to the violent minority which disgrace your entire religion. Teach your brothers tolerance and to respect freedom of expression. The same freedoms afford you the right to practice your religion and your beliefs in our countries. This should not be a battle of East vs. West, but unfortunately that is how it is playing out. If I must take sides I choose the West.

Special thanks to bd for providing a few of the links and one of the images I used. Also, it goes without saying that I speak for myself and that my opinions and the like are not reflective of anyone other than myself.
KrAzY

¹ Here are some select images that I would recommend. Two of them are ones originally published in Denmark, others were found on the internet.
² Mr. Bukhari of the Muslim Public Affairs Committee set a good example when he said Muslims were angry over satirical cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad published in European papers but it was "outrageous" for anyone to advocate extreme action or violence.
Click to expand...

This can be found here: http://prophet.rydasrecords.com/freespeech.html and it continues to be relevant as we have seen Kurt Westergaard have someone with a axe break into his house, this year! I think you can also clearly see I was advocating (in 2006) for others to post their own images as well, and I wasn't the only one. Surely this was not timed to coincide with South Park...
All I did in 2010 was write and post a few things, including this (which I linked to). It explained things in a broader context, including my views and the history of the issue: http://asylum.rydas.com/draw-mohammed-free-speech-a-war-the-west-is-losing/

Once again, as I said in 2006 people have a right to be offended. However, I don't think I could be much more clear as to my motives and clearly I am not and was not doing any of this on behalf of South Park or to emulate South Park. In fact, I think we both were doing this for similar reasons in our own way.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Cantatus']I think this is the thing that has really gone over people's heads in regards to "Draw Muhammad Day" and South Park. The creators of South Park, to my knowledge, never actually depicted Mohammad in an inflammatory or derogatory way. The reason for this is it makes any threats received look overblown and ridiculous. In fact, this is pretty much the plot to the Cartoon Wars episodes. Had South Park decided to depict Muhammad as, say, screwing a camel, it would've made people being offended look expected and reasonable.

In summary, South Park was essentially saying, "We depicted Muhammad in a completely innocuous and harmless way, and look at how crazy of a response we're getting."

[/QUOTE]



[quote name='IRHari']I agree with Cantatus, I think the idea of South Park getting threats for showing a non-offensive pic of Mohammed is kinda ridiculous. I guess its offensive to even show a picture of him?

[/QUOTE]

It is offensive to the Muslims to draw any picture of Mohammed. The are not just mad at the offensive pictures, they are mad at all picture being drawn.
 
[quote name='KrAzY3']Just to be clear, the "Draw Mohammed" thing did not start with South Park. For instance, drawmohammed.com was created on February 2006 (and linked to my site which I'm pretty sure is why mine got banned in Pakistan as well).[/QUOTE]

Drawing Muhammad might not have started with South Park, but Draw Muhammad Day most certainly did, and that is what I'm referring to since so many people have jumped on that bandwagon recently.

[quote name='62t']It is offensive to the Muslims to draw any picture of Mohammed. The are not just mad at the offensive pictures, they are mad at all picture being drawn.[/QUOTE]

I'm aware, and that gets back to the point South Park was making.
 
I saw this comic, I know OP would get engorged when he sees it:
1274633405502.jpg
 
I've been meaning to tell you this for a while Hari, most of your pictures just end up as 4chan.org logo from what i can tell.
 
[quote name='KrAzY3']It did what I intended it to do. In fact, it did it in a larger scale than I expected. It was meant to offend and provoke, I always said it was deliberately offensive. However, I always explained myself and my viewpoint and reasons for doing it as well. It was not racist. It was deliberately simplistic, stereotypical and in truth a bit complimentary (his penis is as long as his arm), but not racist. To simplify, my attitude was, you want to kill people over a cartoon? Here's something that is offensive, learn to deal with it (as people of other religions have when they are mocked). I'm agnostic now, but as a child I was mocked for my religious beliefs. I didn't try to kill anyone and at the core of the issue that's all I'm asking of anyone else.


To be clear, I like a discussion of this issue. That's important, I don't mind and never have minded being called names or having people express their anger or offense with what I did. That's perfectly acceptable, that's a good thing! In fact, I'd be upset if it didn't offend people, it was deliberately offensive. All I am trying to do is explain why I thought it needed to be done. There's a principle being defended. It doesn't mean everyone should be happy with it!


I'm really not sure if you read what I said at all, either in my first post or otherwise. I clearly said I drew and "published" the stick figure in 2006. I did do it to coincide with something, but not the South Park episode! I'm not sure I can make that any more clear. Likewise, my "fire" (the image) was intended as a response to the violence of the time!

If you want my broader view, here's what I posted on my site in 2006:


This can be found here: http://prophet.rydasrecords.com/freespeech.html and it continues to be relevant as we have seen Kurt Westergaard have someone with a axe break into his house, this year! I think you can also clearly see I was advocating (in 2006) for others to post their own images as well, and I wasn't the only one. Surely this was not timed to coincide with South Park...
All I did in 2010 was write and post a few things, including this (which I linked to). It explained things in a broader context, including my views and the history of the issue: http://asylum.rydas.com/draw-mohammed-free-speech-a-war-the-west-is-losing/

Once again, as I said in 2006 people have a right to be offended. However, I don't think I could be much more clear as to my motives and clearly I am not and was not doing any of this on behalf of South Park or to emulate South Park. In fact, I think we both were doing this for similar reasons in our own way.[/QUOTE]
I said you all, as in everyone involved in this. I don't care that you drew your little stick figured 4 years ago.
 
fucking shit. how do i get images on here without having to have them posted on some website like photubkcet or imagesahck or somthing.
 
personally, I find it offensive. I don't see why anyone would take part in 'flaming' Muhammad by drawing him in a way that shows so much disrespect. I got the whole South Park thing... I laughed, sure.. But why egg it on? Why piss them off more? Before we know it, there will be more terrorist attacks. If that's the way they want to live life, let them... I find your drawing offensive, I'd like to know what point you are trying to make. Or just jump on the bandwagon...
 
[quote name='Cantatus']Drawing Muhammad might not have started with South Park, but Draw Muhammad Day most certainly did, and that is what I'm referring to since so many people have jumped on that bandwagon recently.[/QUOTE]
My point was I didn't jump on the bandwagon recently and what I said and did had direct correlation to the events of 2006. I didn't even make a drawing for EDMD...

[quote name='punklivz']personally, I find it offensive. I don't see why anyone would take part in 'flaming' Muhammad by drawing him in a way that shows so much disrespect. I got the whole South Park thing... I laughed, sure.. But why egg it on? Why piss them off more? Before we know it, there will be more terrorist attacks. If that's the way they want to live life, let them... I find your drawing offensive, I'd like to know what point you are trying to make. Or just jump on the bandwagon...[/QUOTE]

Allow me to quote what I said in 2006:
This is not a fight that we can afford to lose. If the extremists feel they have won this fight they will be encouraged to further tell us what we can and can not do. If they can so easily silence the press and they are aware of this fact they will only become more violent and make more threats in the future. I implore everyone to take a stand and not let this issue die, lest they view it as a victory. Take up protest in your own way. Whether it be making your own drawing, posting the cartoons in your blogs or making your own web pages. Let it be known that you are not going to be intimidated and that you value your right to express yourself as you see fit.
Click to expand...

I have linked to two things I had to say (and I didn't even link to the image). If you really want to know what point I am trying to make then read what I said. I understand not everyone has the time or wants to take the time to read what I wrote, but if you are curious the explanation is there. For the record, the threats have continued... they honestly won last round. They were able to keep virtually all major media outlets for reprinting picture of Mohammed. This time around they managed to get South Park censored. They won't stop as long as it's working and it's working as long as we censor ourselves.
 
I think that you should concentrate more on developing the security factors of your websites so that no one can hack them
o.gif
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='IRHari']fucking shit. how do i get images on here without having to have them posted on some website like photubkcet or imagesahck or somthing.[/QUOTE]
I think it's 4chan itself, they don't allow hotlinking apparently.
 
What should I do to get them on this site w/o using photobucket/imageshack? There are some beautiful images on 4chan and I'd love to share them with CAG.
 
Well photobucketand imageshack would be the easiest way. If you have any web space from your ISP you might could use that.
 
[quote name='IRHari']What should I do to get them on this site w/o using photobucket/imageshack? There are some beautiful images on 4chan and I'd love to share them with CAG.[/QUOTE]

http://sadpanda.us/
 
Right click on the picture and left click on "Copy Image Location".

Copy the link and then insert image.

Even if the mod deletes the image (I assume the owner of the picture complains), the link should stay there.
 
Parents and teachers always tell their children to choose their battles wisely because there are so many things (big and small, important and unimportant) to argue for. This is one of those times where people didn't choose wisely. Instead of just letting the extremists act like a bunch of buffoons and gain the isolation they deserve from their moderate counterparts, the people involved with "Draw Mohammad Day" have given more sympathy to the violent people out of the group. Many people, Muslim and non-Muslim alike, are going to be offended by some of these outrageous drawings and the point will be completely lost. The point of this whole idea is to show how far off the extremists are by being respectful with how they go about offending them. In the Islamic culture it is offensive to depict any picture of Mohammad, but with tasteful pictures, it is more likely to get the moderates to support your cause or at least not side with the extremists. How about the offensive participants of this movement either keep there drawings to themselves or learn how to be a little more respectful to other cultures?
 
[quote name='E-Z-B']I thought this was a thread where everyone was going to post their cartoons. :whistle2:([/QUOTE]

Nope. That would lead to racism, don't you know?
 
[quote name='KrAzY3']


Allow me to quote what I said in 2006:


I have linked to two things I had to say (and I didn't even link to the image). If you really want to know what point I am trying to make then read what I said. I understand not everyone has the time or wants to take the time to read what I wrote, but if you are curious the explanation is there. For the record, the threats have continued... they honestly won last round. They were able to keep virtually all major media outlets for reprinting picture of Mohammed. This time around they managed to get South Park censored. They won't stop as long as it's working and it's working as long as we censor ourselves.[/QUOTE]

I disagree. I am not censored. WTF do I need to draw Muhammad for? If that's how they live, if that's what they believe, who am I to judge? Who the fuck cares if he doesn't want to be publicly shown. That's too much to ask? I personally don't think it should be as big of a deal as it is. If all it takes to keep some peace, is to not draw Muhammad... then wtf is the big deal... that's not too much to ask IMHO.

Do you remember the girl in high school who was questioned without her parents because she had an anti picture of BUSH on her myspace????? they MADE her take that down. Isn't that censorship?
 
[quote name='Friend of Sonic']Is there an explanation on why it is so bad to depict Mohammad? I know there was some info from Wikipedia posted in the previous thread, but that got nuked in its entirety (which is a shame, they could have easily just deleted that post with all of the offensive pictures instead of killing the entire thread)[/QUOTE]

Wow, this is what I get for not being on CAG for a few days.

The reason behind it is to effectively prevent idolatry. The time of Muhammad, and in fact the believe system that Islam stamped out in Mecca, was that of idol worship. Islam being fiercely monotheistic, means that worshipping or giving praise to anything but God, is the biggest sin a person can commit. If you have pictures of Muhammad, then they start being displayed at the front of every mosque, people pray and praise him, rather than soley to God.

Edit: And kudos to everyone who has voted on this thread. I see it has about 1 star higher than I think it's worth, but it's nice to see CAGs "stand in solidarity" against filth.
 
[KrAzY3] My point was I didn't jump on the bandwagon recently and what I said and did had direct correlation to the events of 2006. I didn't even make a drawing for EDMD...


--All I really get out of this is that you're trying to convince us you've been an asshole since way before South Park, and not just a bandwagon asshole. I think myself, and a vast majority of the thread posters agree.

Mission accomplished?
 
[quote name='momouchi']...people involved with "Draw Mohammad Day" have given more sympathy to the violent people out of the group. Many people, Muslim and non-Muslim alike, are going to be offended by some of these outrageous drawings and the point will be completely lost. The point of this whole idea is to show how far off the extremists are by being respectful with how they go about offending them. In the Islamic culture it is offensive to depict any picture of Mohammad, but with tasteful pictures, it is more likely to get the moderates to support your cause or at least not side with the extremists. ?[/QUOTE]

Sympathy from whom? Let me quote something a Muslim woman said to me a few days ago:
I dont think death threats are cool. I disagree with them. That is not islam.

But I do feel offended when someone draws cartoons about Prophet Muhammad. Just as I would feel it if someone drew obscene images of my family.

My point is, when you know something is going to piss so many people off..then why do it? why?
Click to expand...
Here is my response
Some cartoons were in bad taste. We can agree. I will confess to making one in bad taste myself. The point is, I do not want to offend Muslims. I do not want to defame Islam. I merely can not stand idly by and let this violence stand unopposed. The government of Pakistan circulated a memo banning my site and I was proud. Not proud because I offended them, but proud because I was not watching others be threatened with violence, I was putting myself in harms way as well.
Click to expand...
You will note she said nothing at all indicating her support for violence or the like, she expressed her opposition to it as any moderate Muslim would! When you say that drawing a picture gives sympathy to violent people, you are basically saying something very negative about Islamic culture in general. Yes, it's offensive but no, it will not push a moderate towards siding with extremists if they actually are moderate! Reasonable people will always see the difference between violence and non-violence! Based on some responses in this topic, I think some of the people against my drawing actually have a more negative view of Islamic people in general than I do. I don't think a moderate will go out and side with violent radicals over a picture, because by definition a moderate wouldn't do that!

Having said that, the initial depiction that really got people going was the "bomb head" Mohammed. It has led to the artist having a man break into his house with a axe and while it was brilliant commentary on the issue (violent extremists have placed a bomb on Mohammed's head) it was definitely offensive. So, we can't go back in time and whitewash that and pretend that's not a major part of the issue. The depiction was offensive, it lead to death threats and that's where my drawing came into play...

[quote name='thrustbucket']Nope. That would lead to racism, don't you know?[/QUOTE]
Not all Arabs are Muslim and not all Muslims are Arab. Depictions of Mohammed by himself are not generally going to be racist since he's not a race. To give a example, one person rather active on one of the "Draw Mohammed" Facebook pages is a Lebanese woman. She's most certainly of Middle Eastern descent, and would take great offense (based on her statements) to being called a Muslim. She also didn't seem to think what she was doing was racist against herself...

[quote name='punklivz']I disagree. I am not censored. WTF do I need to draw Muhammad for? If that's how they live, if that's what they believe, who am I to judge? Who the fuck cares if he doesn't want to be publicly shown. That's too much to ask? I personally don't think it should be as big of a deal as it is. If all it takes to keep some peace, is to not draw Muhammad... then wtf is the big deal... that's not too much to ask IMHO.

Do you remember the girl in high school who was questioned without her parents because she had an anti picture of BUSH on her myspace????? they MADE her take that down. Isn't that censorship?[/QUOTE]
If you allow yourself to be told not to draw a picture, then yes you are being censored. If you do it voluntarily, that's self-censorship and you have a right to do that. You don't have a right to tell me not to though. If you do, you are censoring me. Yes, that is too much to ask.

Secondly, if you think capitulating to violent extremists is going to bring about peace you are incredibly naive. If a bully punches you in the stomach and demands your lunch money, do you think giving it to him will be the end of it? Or might he return the next day and demand more. Or go and punch other kids in the stomach? If you reward violence you are encouraging it. To be frank, if we give in on this issue, the people that give in are the ones with blood on their hands because they are teaching the violent extremists that violence works!

I don't know the specifics but based on what you said it doesn't sound like she did anything wrong. If I drew a picture of George Bush he'd be wearing a cowboy hat and having sex with a horse...

For the record, I've been a asshole since long before 2006...

Sometimes it takes a asshole to stand up for people's rights though and stand up to thugs. It took a guy like Larry Flynt to stand up to censorship in America. He made cartoons that viciously made fun of religious figures as well as his pornography (he depicted Jerry Falwell having sex with his own mother). He was shot. He's a hero to those that truly believe in free speech.
 
I don't want to speak for others, but the reason why I mock you is because you really think you're on this amazing, eye-opening crusade (bad word choice), by drawing stick figures of a man you call Muhammad having sex with a camel, and somehow thinking it's clever or revolutionary. It's immature at best, probably asinine.

There's a clever way to make the issue known (South Park), then there's your way. Wonder why people on these very same boards were overwhelmingly supportive of their way, and so overwhelmingly opposed to yours?

Then my last point, you keep trying to say this is about censorship and intimidation. I agree it's about intimidation (both ways), but the censorship thing boils down to my main issue with selectively applying "freedom of speech". Just because you CAN do something, SHOULD you?
 
Shit...

Don't drape yourself in the flag and pretend you're the hero of free speech. You've got the right to say whatever you want, sure. That doesn't mean that it's worth saying.

Your cartoon was offensive to everyone because it was offensive. Not because it depicted the prophet. The whole point of the protest is to focus on the fact that depictions are considered offensive in and of themselves, and the offended populations have chilled speech through violent threats. This point is far more effective if the cartoons are innocuous.

Assholes like you are always using The People Versus Larry Flynt as their excuse to be assholes. Unfortunately, we have to defend dickwads like you and Flynt so that actually socially valuable speech doesn't end up silenced.

Draw a cartoon of someone fucking a camel if you want. Hell, draw a dozen cartoons of everyone you don't like fucking camels. But don't pretend that what you're doing is worthwhile, and don't pretend that you're my savior. You're a painful itchy polyp on the asshole of humanity. The violent radical Islamists are a cancerous tumor on that same ass. You're a step above them, but only barely.
 
[quote name='berzirk']I don't want to speak for others, but the reason why I mock you is because you really think you're on this amazing, eye-opening crusade (bad word choice), by drawing stick figures of a man you call Muhammad having sex with a camel, and somehow thinking it's clever or revolutionary. It's immature at best, probably asinine...

Then my last point, you keep trying to say this is about censorship and intimidation. I agree it's about intimidation (both ways), but the censorship thing boils down to my main issue with selectively applying "freedom of speech". Just because you CAN do something, SHOULD you?[/QUOTE]

I didn't even link to my picture here! I didn't post it, didn't link to it and barely made mention of it. Yes, I take ownership of it and will and have explained it when asked but I never came here to talk about my stick figure. I linked to 11 full paragraphs of text. I linked to my stick figure in my fourth full paragraph. The picture was posted here, the picture was discussed here yet not one single thing I said from 11 full paragraphs has been quoted or addressed here. It seems to me it's other people that want to make it all about the image, not myself. I will gladly discuss the broader issue but I will take full responsibility for drawing it.

In the case of threatened free speech? Yes, the we should push the limits intentionally. South Park (for example) has done that in many ways, including their famous "shit" episode. Was that in bad taste? Sure, it was... but it made a point and in the years since we've actually seen the word used more commonly on cable TV. You have to push the limits on occasion, if you value freedom of expression. Finally, there is also the issue of desensitizing people. Things are often only obscene or offensive because our perception of them. Viewing breasts in America is more controversial than in most parts of Europe. Why? Because we attach additional importance to it. The more you see, the less you tend to be offended by it. The same goes with images of Mohammed, Mohammad, Muhammad (however you want to spell it). The more we see, and the more offensive images we see the more we get used to it. The Last Temptation of Christ was highly controversial and there were threats of violence over that movie. In the years since shows like Family Guy can go well, well beyond that without getting nearly the same response. If people were never willing to test the limits we might still be burning witches...

Having said all that, I know what I drew was intentionally immature and silly as well as offensive. I've always said that about it, so it's odd to tell me I think otherwise, when I've always said things about it like "intentionally offensive (both in subject matter and artistically)". I'm not sure how you could get any other ideas... I know I'm not Theo van Gogh, Salman Rushdie, Kurt Westergaard or even Larry Flynt. I merely want to show my solidarity.

[quote name='Quillion']Shit...

Don't drape yourself in the flag and pretend you're the hero of free speech. You've got the right to say whatever you want, sure. That doesn't mean that it's worth saying.[/QUOTE]
Never said I was a hero of free speech, I tried to make it clear I was showing solidarity with my heroes of free speech though. Once again, I provided a lot of text, I made my position abundantly clear and still all anyone wants to do is talk about a stick figure drawing. That's easy to do, but it's just not the point. I could have linked to this crappy thing I made instead: http://prophet.rydasrecords.com/images/defame.jpg and most people wouldn't even get what I was trying to convey (partially my fault), or I could say that this is actually my favorite image: http://prophet.rydasrecords.com/images/tolerant.gif (wish I could make something like that). What good would that do though? People who are offensive are by definition not popular. Popular speech is never threatened, so it's the unpopular stuff we have to stand up for.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
So you're saying it's a positive that more shows are using the word "shit" as part of your justification for painting yourself as a martyr? Brilliant. Being intentionally offensive isn't really a resume bullet point I'd ever be proud to list. Apparently we're very different creatures.

Again, not to speak for others in this thread, but I sincerely doubt (m)any have taken the time to read your blog/website/whatever it is, because they've gotten enough of a snapshot of you, your beliefs, and the manner in which you choose to display them, and have made the judgement call that if these forum posts are even mildly representative of your views, you're not worth investing more time in.

By the way, if we're really supporting free speech (OK, fine, "standing in solidarity) with those who support free speech), why didn't you support those a-holes who (according to law enforcement) did NOT make any death threats to Comedy Central, rather just displayed their disdain through freedom of speech? Go ahead an post your cartoon on that one. Feel free to update it to MS Paint if you really want to provide your masterpiece for us all to enjoy. Allow me to provide the text for you, "derka". Paint It!

Wait...did you really just add: "People who are offensive are by definition not popular. Popular speech is never threatened, so it's the unpopular stuff we have to stand up for. " You're like an afterschool special created by Nancy Grace, Geraldo Rivera, and Corky from Life Goes On. No more cliches, you're killing me!...hmm...death threat?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hey douche, no one except the crazies are condoning the violence. Nice starman though, it was nice of you to slip that in there.

I'm not sure if you understand the 'offense' of showing depictions of Mohammad. berzirk (who is a Muslim I believe) summed up the opposition to the depictions. There is a reason. You seem to think showing depictions over and over will desensitize muslims to the image and they won't get offended, but there is a basis for taking offense. Whether you agree with it or not.

By the way, I was the one who posted your pic of Mohammed. Last I checked, the thread title is 'Draw Mohammed - My Personal Opinion and Involvement', so posting your pic was pretty important here.
 
[quote name='berzirk']So you're saying it's a positive that more shows are using the word "shit" as part of your justification for painting yourself as a martyr? Brilliant. Being intentionally offensive isn't really a resume bullet point I'd ever be proud to list. Apparently we're very different creatures.![/QUOTE]

Apparently... I value each and every freedom. Right down to saying and hearing the word "shit" as much as I want.

[quote name='berzirk']
By the way, if we're really supporting free speech (OK, fine, "standing in solidarity) with those who support free speech), why didn't you support those a-holes who (according to law enforcement) did NOT make any death threats to Comedy Central, rather just displayed their disdain through freedom of speech?[/QUOTE]
Were any killed? Were any threatened with violence? If so I missed it. If they are then please do show me how so and what manner and I will decry it to the best of my limited ability. I tried to make it clear I drew that intentionally immature and silly drawing simply to show support for artists that were under the threat of death for doing what they did. It was supposed to be worse than what they did, that was the point. I'm not a activist, I'm just someone that really sucks at drawing that made a stick figure and then put a essay on a page and ended up having a government officially ban his website. No more, no less. I'm no hero, I'm not a martyr, but I regret that I haven't done more. Others are living with panic rooms in their house, I should be able to share some of that burden...

As far as reading my blog, I actually agree most people don't have time to read it but my point was they had time to dig through it and find the picture, but not to address any of the text...
 
You've been quick to criticize those guys for making reference to a guy who was killed in their open letter to Comedy Central/Trey/Matt and you yourself referred to it as "death threats" while law enforcement failed to agree with you. So if you're defending free speech, you should be applauding that group for being offensive in their post. Remember, being offensive isn't popular, but it's their cross...err...crescent, to bear.

I guess true progress is when everyone is drawing camel-based bestiality pictures and referring to those killed in posts to ask those same artists to stop drawing them.
 
[quote name='berzirk']You've been quick to criticize those guys for making reference to a guy who was killed in their open letter to Comedy Central/Trey/Matt and you yourself referred to it as "death threats" while law enforcement failed to agree with you. So if you're defending free speech, you should be applauding that group for being offensive in their post. Remember, being offensive isn't popular, but it's their cross...err...crescent, to bear.

I guess true progress is when everyone is drawing camel-based bestiality pictures and referring to those killed in posts to ask those same artists to stop drawing them.[/QUOTE]
Umm, I think my exact comment about Trey and Matt was "have been threatened", I believe the exact text said to them was "they will probably wind up like Theo Van Gogh for airing this show". So, if that's all I can dig up that was said to them, then yes saying "have been threatened" might have been a bit excessive. They did show a graphic picture of Theo van Gogh as well, so the message was threatening, but I might have put it better if I said something like "have been sent a threatening message", in either case I've never built my view of the world around the result of legal proceedings.

My repeated references to "death threats" (to my recollection) have been in references to the 2006 depictions of Mohammed, which have amongst other things resulted in a man with a axe breaking into Kurt Westergaard's house. So, I think I am completely correct in making that assertion.

As far as the limits of free speech, I think that we should err on the side of free speech if there is any doubt, however I don't think a stick figure having sex with a camel really has a lot in common with a picture of a man who was brutally murdered (unless you see a different type of commonality there).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='KrAzY3']

As far as the limits of free speech, I think that we should err on the side of free speech if there is any doubt, however I don't think a stick figure having sex with a camel really has a lot in common with a picture of a man who was brutally murdered (unless you see a different type of commonality there).[/QUOTE]

Quit trying to stifle free speech, fascist! They had as much right to post those pics as anyone! If we see enough brutal pictures of murdered people, we'll be desensitized by it, and then all cable TV will show pictures of brutally murdered people, and we'll be a better society. These guys are of your ilk. True pioneers of free speech!

Keep fighting the good fight, men!
 
The difference is that a precedent has been set regarding fatwas and that it is not just free speech, but something that often results in someone actually being killed - which has been exemplified numerous times in the past. Again, the concept of a fatwa is placing a bounty on someone's head because one feels they insulted one's religion/prophet/etc. However, there are so many ways one can insult Islam (or any religion for that matter), there is little way to avoid a fatwa if you criticize the religion at all:
i.e.:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ting_violence_against_a_particular_individual

The fatwa in most cases is promoting violence to silence criticism/free speech.


To draw a parallel, how would you feel if extremist Christians put a bounty on the head of any individual that spoke out in favor of abortion? Or, if radical Islamicists placed a bounty on the head of any individual that spoke out against women having to wear headscarfs in public?

While most of the cartoons in this thread are disrespectful and/or juvenile, the real question is - do they warrant death? And, I think that is the point of the OP. Does any criticism of any religion justify death or a bounty being placed on one's head?

If Muhammad is censored, then all the religions should be censored. Jesus Christ et. al should also be censored from South Park. Otherwise it is a scary double standard.
 
[quote name='Ruined']The difference is that a precedent has been set regarding fatwas and that it is not just free speech, but something that often results in someone actually being killed - which has been exemplified numerous times in the past. Again, the concept of a fatwa is placing a bounty on someone's head because one feels they insulted one's religion/prophet/etc. However, there are so many ways one can insult Islam (or any religion for that matter), there is little way to avoid a fatwa if you criticize the religion at all:
i.e.:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ting_violence_against_a_particular_individual

The fatwa in most cases is promoting violence to silence criticism/free speech.


[/QUOTE]

....and the most incorrect use of the word fatwa goes to....

A fatwa is nothing more than a scholar's edict. It can be followed, not followed, trusted, not trusted. It's only as good as the so-called scholar's credibility and sources used to back it up.

Scholars issue fatwas on issues like car insurance, text messaging, and yes, in some instances, declaration on the actions of muslims and/or non-muslims.

Here is one website with fatwas. http://www.askimam.org/ Looks like marriage, followed by prayer are the two most frequent fatwa topics on this site.

It is true that "fatwa", much like "jihad", has been misunderstood, and frequently used by those that don't know the meaning of the words though.

And I agree with your underlying point that none of this warrants violence. The difference with the depiction of Muhammad is that it's a practice that muslims don't do. Depictions of Jesus are commonplace by Christians, so just the idea of an image, isn't already rooted in disdain for them.
 
Don't worry berzirk, Ruined doesn't exactly excel at reading comprehension.

http://www.cheapassgamer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=253870

See the thread above. He still hasn't defended his claim that Obamacare throws the current system in the trash. But a statement like his not based on reality is pretty difficult to defend.

Back OT, No one on this thread condones this violence. Stop with the strawmen, because the argument has been made perfectly fucking clear.
 
[quote name='Ruined']If Muhammad is censored, then all the religions should be censored. Jesus Christ et. al should also be censored from South Park. Otherwise it is a scary double standard.[/QUOTE]

What?

Christians haven't asked for South Park to cut out Jesus. Jesus is even a bit character in the series. Why would he have to be cut out because Muslims don't want a depiction of their Prophet?

How is that a double standard?
 
[quote name='IRHari']Don't worry berzirk, Ruined doesn't exactly excel at reading comprehension.

http://www.cheapassgamer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=253870

See the thread above. He still hasn't defended his claim that Obamacare throws the current system in the trash. But a statement like his not based on reality is pretty difficult to defend.

Back OT, No one on this thread condones this violence. Stop with the strawmen, because the argument has been made perfectly fucking clear.[/QUOTE]

For a guy who's so obsessed with pointing out others' logical fallacies, you sure do have a hard-on for ad hominem.

Oh, shi- gotta contribute to the thread. Random point to rebuke, go!

if you're defending free speech, you should be applauding that group for being offensive
Click to expand...

One doesn't need to applaud the offensiveness of a given group to defend free speech. For example, I recall in one of the threads here on the Westboro Nutjobs how people were defending their right to be batshit crazy fucktards despite absolutely condemning their views.
 
[quote name='DarkSageRK']

One doesn't need to applaud the offensiveness of a given group to defend free speech. For example, I recall in one of the threads here on the Westboro Nutjobs how people were defending their right to be batshit crazy fucktards despite absolutely condemning their views.[/QUOTE]

Oh I don't believe that we should applaud offensiveness of a group at all. I was pointing out the idiocy of Krazy's comment that being offensive is what causes societal advancement, and offensive isn't popular.

I found his little website and stance not so much offensive as outright stupid. I found the two dude's who told Comedy Central not to broadcast the show offensive. I applaud neither of those groups.
 
Ruined made a pretty extreme statement that obamacare would throw the current system in the trash. He didn't cite any reasons why this was true. When he was called out on it he pushed the plate away and didn't respond. I thought it was necessary to point out that he'll make claims but he won't necessarily back them up.

That said, I really didn't disagree with his point that violence is bad. But there wasn't any need for him to post those rhetorical questions because no one here has condoned violence.

EDIT: I don't think I really attacked him to undermine the argument he made in his post here. I agree with his argument that violence is bad. I'm pointing out that his debating style might result in him just posting here and leaving.

hard-on is a pretty strong word. if i do ad hominem a lot i apologize.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='perdition(troy']Except racists.[/QUOTE]

You can be racist all you want as long as you don't try to influence public policy.
 
I post here quite rarely, so I wouldn't know if it was bad form or not to bump a old topic, but in this case I do think it's relevant.

When Molly Norris was placed on a hit list and subsequently warned by the FBI, I thought about making a post here. However, being my apathetic self I decided against it. I did decide to at least reply to this topic after I saw this story on The Smoking Gun: Man Who Threatened "South Park" Arrested.

I felt like this topic was caught in in a narrow context. It is about Theo van Gogh and Salman Rushdie. It's also about Lars Vliks, Kurt Westergaard, and now Molly Norris. One key distinction here is that none of this individuals did anything remotely violent. Yet, all live under the thread of death (well, Theo is dead) and with the exception of Rushdie and Norris, all have been attacked. It is about radicals and terrorists, as Anwar al-Awlaki and Zachary Chesser demonstrate.

Some in this discussion seemed to want to confine it to "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day", which is like starting a book on the last chapter. Others seemed to want to downplay the threat that these artists live under, pointing out that the "threats" (The Smoking Gun's wording) against South Park didn't result in arrests and originated in the United States (as though that somehow lessens the concern?). There was even the appeasement argument, that we shouldn't do anything to upset the radicals or people will die...

The "cartoon jihad" started years ago, as did the "Draw Mohammed" response, unfortunately now Molly is someone that has to fear for her life as well now, despite her capitulation to the radicals. The FBI saw fit to arrest the individual that made "threats" to the South Park creators and he hardly seems completely harmless (stupid, yes as are most terrorists). As far as appeasement, did that do Molly any good? Her image itself was almost as unoffensive as one could make it given the subject matter, and then she took the further step of disavowing even that, yet she's still marked for death.

The simple fact of the matter is that we are not dealing with reasonable people here. We're dealing with violent madmen and a silent majority that usually doesn't see fit to call them out for their actions. The radicals can not be appeased, however they can win and they certainly have some victories in this "cartoon jihad" (Molly apologizing, newspapers apologizing, governments apologizing, etc...). I understand why some were upset with certain depictions, in truth some were intentionally done to elicit that response. I think they were a perfectly reasonable response to violent radicals, they threaten lives and others draw pictures.

The fact is this is not about Islam unless Muslims want to make it about Islam. Some Islamic teachings say not to depict Mohammed (and this set of beliefs leads all the way to silly things like the removal of faces on a foosball table), but this is a teaching of Islam. One can not insist non-believers follow this belief or any Islamic beliefs unless they wish to not only throw free speech under the bus but freedom of religion as well as well. Instead, this is about violent radicals and the need to resist them. Drawing pictures (or making movies, writing books, etc...), however disrespectful, of Mohammed will not cause people to be killed any more than not meeting a kidnappers demands cause the kidnapped to be killed. However, meeting the demands does have consequences. In countries in which meeting kidnapping ransoms have become common, kidnappings tend to skyrocket and deaths involved in kidnappings consequently go up as well.

There is only one logical response to the radicals: resistance.... I respect those that do so in as respectful a manner as possible, but I also respect those that intentionally push the issue. We can't bring Theo van Gogh back from the dead, but we can continue the spirit of his fight, which was not that of appeasement or even respect for Islam, but rather resistance as he saw fit.
 
You don't get any respect from anyone in this thread because of what you did. Instead of spreading pictures of Mohammed everywhere, which was the point of EDMD, you drew an offensive picture of him. You offended any decent person who saw that picture.

You played right into the small minority fringe's hands when you drew your pic. Osama Bin Laden would be ecstatic when he shows your drawing to other radicals, saying see, look how they trash our religion. When people protest the Mosque at 9/11 OBL is happy too, saying see, we're being persecuted even in America.
 
[quote name='KrAzY3']I post here quite rarely, so I wouldn't know if it was bad form or not to bump a old topic, but in this case I do think it's relevant.

When Molly Norris was placed on a hit list and subsequently warned by the FBI, I thought about making a post here. However, being my apathetic self I decided against it. I did decide to at least reply to this topic after I saw this story on The Smoking Gun: Man Who Threatened "South Park" Arrested.

I felt like this topic was caught in in a narrow context. It is about Theo van Gogh and Salman Rushdie. It's also about Lars Vliks, Kurt Westergaard, and now Molly Norris. One key distinction here is that none of this individuals did anything remotely violent. Yet, all live under the thread of death (well, Theo is dead) and with the exception of Rushdie and Norris, all have been attacked. It is about radicals and terrorists, as Anwar al-Awlaki and Zachary Chesser demonstrate.

Some in this discussion seemed to want to confine it to "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day", which is like starting a book on the last chapter. Others seemed to want to downplay the threat that these artists live under, pointing out that the "threats" (The Smoking Gun's wording) against South Park didn't result in arrests and originated in the United States (as though that somehow lessens the concern?). There was even the appeasement argument, that we shouldn't do anything to upset the radicals or people will die...

The "cartoon jihad" started years ago, as did the "Draw Mohammed" response, unfortunately now Molly is someone that has to fear for her life as well now, despite her capitulation to the radicals. The FBI saw fit to arrest the individual that made "threats" to the South Park creators and he hardly seems completely harmless (stupid, yes as are most terrorists). As far as appeasement, did that do Molly any good? Her image itself was almost as unoffensive as one could make it given the subject matter, and then she took the further step of disavowing even that, yet she's still marked for death.

The simple fact of the matter is that we are not dealing with reasonable people here. We're dealing with violent madmen and a silent majority that usually doesn't see fit to call them out for their actions. The radicals can not be appeased, however they can win and they certainly have some victories in this "cartoon jihad" (Molly apologizing, newspapers apologizing, governments apologizing, etc...). I understand why some were upset with certain depictions, in truth some were intentionally done to elicit that response. I think they were a perfectly reasonable response to violent radicals, they threaten lives and others draw pictures.

The fact is this is not about Islam unless Muslims want to make it about Islam. Some Islamic teachings say not to depict Mohammed (and this set of beliefs leads all the way to silly things like the removal of faces on a foosball table), but this is a teaching of Islam. One can not insist non-believers follow this belief or any Islamic beliefs unless they wish to not only throw free speech under the bus but freedom of religion as well as well. Instead, this is about violent radicals and the need to resist them. Drawing pictures (or making movies, writing books, etc...), however disrespectful, of Mohammed will not cause people to be killed any more than not meeting a kidnappers demands cause the kidnapped to be killed. However, meeting the demands does have consequences. In countries in which meeting kidnapping ransoms have become common, kidnappings tend to skyrocket and deaths involved in kidnappings consequently go up as well.

There is only one logical response to the radicals: resistance.... I respect those that do so in as respectful a manner as possible, but I also respect those that intentionally push the issue. We can't bring Theo van Gogh back from the dead, but we can continue the spirit of his fight, which was not that of appeasement or even respect for Islam, but rather resistance as he saw fit.[/QUOTE]

Not only are you belittling a religion and an entire group of people (not just the extremists); You are belittling the artists' (you claim to support) real sacrifices of making the art they wanted regardless of the consequences.

oh wait, resistance =

camelf.jpg


:roll:

- edit Oh hey, you have another horrible blog up.

Let's see what you have this time.

defame.jpg


...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hey, guys, you know how muslims don't like it when you show Muhammad?

Why don't we just respect that and go back to killing them like usual.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top