Good by Pouet, from all swedes!
category: general [glöplog]
Quote:
the indians are the real natives.
Only when in India.
hmm them swedes are still here?
America is a good example of what happens if you allow unrestricted immigration. The native people ends up living in reserves.
Quote:
That's got to be crappiest argument against imigration of all time. The native americans didn't allow any imigration, the europeans came and took their land at gunpoint. Besides, America wasn't divided in states in those days so there was noone who could control how much people came and where they went.America is a good example of what happens if you allow unrestricted immigration. The native people ends up living in reserves.
That argument is in popular in the non-PC kingdom of Denmark now I guess...
all land everywhere apart from ethiopia was taken at the beginning....then they created money
everyone is innocent from all crime etc etc...its just a feeling richeous response (many dont know this and think they are guilty when theyre not)
imigration is another example of this
everyone is innocent from all crime etc etc...its just a feeling richeous response (many dont know this and think they are guilty when theyre not)
imigration is another example of this
if people stopped having so many children then there wouldnt be a need for an imigration system
im gonna go with Dino on this one.
First of all western, especially northen European media is trying to make it look like that people are angry because Jyllands-Posten (JP) published drawings of Muhammed and that the Muslim world is upset because images of Muhammed is forbidden according to the Koran / Islam. That is not the case, nowhere in the Koran does it say that it is forbidden to show images of Muhammed.
However, Muhammed himself personally did not want people to worship him, or an image of him. Instead he wanted people to turn directly towards God, and any idol worship would just be an obstacle between the man and God. In many Islamic countries and classic Muslim art there are images of the prophet.
Second of all, one must put this in perspective. It isn't just about some images published in some newspaper somewhere. The Muslim world has been under heavy assault from the west basically since the 50s and it has gone from bad to worse to hopeless after 2001. Not only are the west waging war upon Muslims and Islamic republics, but the religion itself is being portrayed as an evil terrorist breeding religion, also Muslims that live in western countries are constant subjects to both government sanctioned hostility and civilian hostility. Some examples are the french governments law that prohibits Muslims from wearing wails in schools. Or the numerous bombings, protests and demonstrations towards Mosques all over northern Europe.
When such a climate exists it frustration builds up, it becomes a "them and us" situation, where people are looking for solutions. What happens is that the little minority of extremists get unproportional room. They can easily point at the persecution of Muslims and say that this is just a continuation of the crusades, that there is a war being waged upon Muslims, and that every true Muslim is a soldier in this war. Of course, it is in western interests to over represent and magnify this little fraction of extremists and throw gas on the fire.
That is exactly what JP and Denmark has done. The cartoons are acts of trolling, they were not a part of an article or social commentary, it was basically JP saying "We are going to test the freedom of speech, here are some offensive images of Muhammed, lets see what happens." How smart, what a great move. Lets see how much we can kick a dog and see if it bites back.
Now keep in mind that this is the same paper that refused to publish a caricature of Jesus because they found it offensive and tasteless. And keep in mind that Norway that also published the images banned Monty Python's Life of Brian because of religious reasons. Also keep in mind that Denmark is at war with an Islamic Republic and has soldiers in Iraq, and have a very strong tradition with government sanctioned hostility not only against Muslims but all immigrants. For example it is illegal for a Danish citizen to marry a non-danish citizen and live in Denmark. That is why many Danish couples emigrate to Sweden instead.
Before this blew up, Arabic nations tried to solve this with diplomacy. They pulled their ambassadors from Denmark and wanted to arrange a meeting with the Danish prime minister. What we have is a diplomatical crisis and it is the prime minister's duty to have this meeting and explain freedom of press in Denmark, and that JP did not commit a crime. Instead the prime minister refused to have a meeting, and THAT is when the crisis escalated into boycotts and demonstrations in Palestine.
This whole argument about that it was right because of freedom of speech is crap. Look...
If I see a ugly fat girl walking down the street, i have the legal right to go up to her and say "Oh my god! Your are is so damn ugly! Disgusting, how can you go out like this?". I have the right to do that because of freedom of speech...
BUT... I have enough brains to not do that, because I am smart enough to understand that this will offend her greatly, hurt her feelings and provoke her. Also, it will not change anything and neither I or she will benefit from it. Also, it is common decency and civilized behaviour NOT to do so.
However I have the right to do so, cause hey-- freedom of speech.
So all you idiots that defend this JP's actions and try to hide behind freedom of speech-- give it a break. What JP did was idiotic, offensive, provocative, and unnecessary, and the only ones that benefit from this are anti-Muslims and the extreme Islamists.
What if JP published images of Jewish icons that look like rats, had big noses and money bags under their arms? Would they ever do that? Would people find it tasteless and wrong? You and I know the answer.
This issue have evolved to something more complex and dangerous and is now a game that isn't being played on our field or level, but by powers with political agendas.
First of all western, especially northen European media is trying to make it look like that people are angry because Jyllands-Posten (JP) published drawings of Muhammed and that the Muslim world is upset because images of Muhammed is forbidden according to the Koran / Islam. That is not the case, nowhere in the Koran does it say that it is forbidden to show images of Muhammed.
However, Muhammed himself personally did not want people to worship him, or an image of him. Instead he wanted people to turn directly towards God, and any idol worship would just be an obstacle between the man and God. In many Islamic countries and classic Muslim art there are images of the prophet.
Second of all, one must put this in perspective. It isn't just about some images published in some newspaper somewhere. The Muslim world has been under heavy assault from the west basically since the 50s and it has gone from bad to worse to hopeless after 2001. Not only are the west waging war upon Muslims and Islamic republics, but the religion itself is being portrayed as an evil terrorist breeding religion, also Muslims that live in western countries are constant subjects to both government sanctioned hostility and civilian hostility. Some examples are the french governments law that prohibits Muslims from wearing wails in schools. Or the numerous bombings, protests and demonstrations towards Mosques all over northern Europe.
When such a climate exists it frustration builds up, it becomes a "them and us" situation, where people are looking for solutions. What happens is that the little minority of extremists get unproportional room. They can easily point at the persecution of Muslims and say that this is just a continuation of the crusades, that there is a war being waged upon Muslims, and that every true Muslim is a soldier in this war. Of course, it is in western interests to over represent and magnify this little fraction of extremists and throw gas on the fire.
That is exactly what JP and Denmark has done. The cartoons are acts of trolling, they were not a part of an article or social commentary, it was basically JP saying "We are going to test the freedom of speech, here are some offensive images of Muhammed, lets see what happens." How smart, what a great move. Lets see how much we can kick a dog and see if it bites back.
Now keep in mind that this is the same paper that refused to publish a caricature of Jesus because they found it offensive and tasteless. And keep in mind that Norway that also published the images banned Monty Python's Life of Brian because of religious reasons. Also keep in mind that Denmark is at war with an Islamic Republic and has soldiers in Iraq, and have a very strong tradition with government sanctioned hostility not only against Muslims but all immigrants. For example it is illegal for a Danish citizen to marry a non-danish citizen and live in Denmark. That is why many Danish couples emigrate to Sweden instead.
Before this blew up, Arabic nations tried to solve this with diplomacy. They pulled their ambassadors from Denmark and wanted to arrange a meeting with the Danish prime minister. What we have is a diplomatical crisis and it is the prime minister's duty to have this meeting and explain freedom of press in Denmark, and that JP did not commit a crime. Instead the prime minister refused to have a meeting, and THAT is when the crisis escalated into boycotts and demonstrations in Palestine.
This whole argument about that it was right because of freedom of speech is crap. Look...
If I see a ugly fat girl walking down the street, i have the legal right to go up to her and say "Oh my god! Your are is so damn ugly! Disgusting, how can you go out like this?". I have the right to do that because of freedom of speech...
BUT... I have enough brains to not do that, because I am smart enough to understand that this will offend her greatly, hurt her feelings and provoke her. Also, it will not change anything and neither I or she will benefit from it. Also, it is common decency and civilized behaviour NOT to do so.
However I have the right to do so, cause hey-- freedom of speech.
So all you idiots that defend this JP's actions and try to hide behind freedom of speech-- give it a break. What JP did was idiotic, offensive, provocative, and unnecessary, and the only ones that benefit from this are anti-Muslims and the extreme Islamists.
What if JP published images of Jewish icons that look like rats, had big noses and money bags under their arms? Would they ever do that? Would people find it tasteless and wrong? You and I know the answer.
This issue have evolved to something more complex and dangerous and is now a game that isn't being played on our field or level, but by powers with political agendas.
Quote:
If I see a ugly fat girl walking down the street, i have the legal right to go up to her and say "Oh my god! Your are is so damn ugly! Disgusting, how can you go out like this?". I have the right to do that because of freedom of speech...
good point. but, if i would, would all her family and friends have the right to set my house on fire and threaten to kill me?
this is a two-edged sword you're handling, and we're all idiots.
iam so _totally_ with dubmood in this one, probably his first sane post :)
If freedom of speech doesn't include making fun of religion, then it's not freedom of speech. Then we're back in the freakin' middle ages. :-(
wow, someone here cant read
Why did Jyllands-Posten publish those cartoons?Here's the editor's own explaination, which sounds very reasonable to me.
"Norway that also published the images..." Dubmood, I don't think *Norway* published anything, a small christian newspaper which has no connection to the Norwegian state published the drawings. As for Life of Brian, it was banned for about 1 year, and that was what, 26 years ago?
There is a long tradition of criticizing christians and their religion in Europe...why shouldn't people be allowed to express their opinions on other religions as well? Why should Islam be given any special treatment? You can like or dislike what JP published, but to give in to a violent mob and take away people's right to criticize and discuss religion is a step in the wrong direction.
There is a long tradition of criticizing christians and their religion in Europe...why shouldn't people be allowed to express their opinions on other religions as well? Why should Islam be given any special treatment? You can like or dislike what JP published, but to give in to a violent mob and take away people's right to criticize and discuss religion is a step in the wrong direction.
i still wonder that religion has so many followers. it's just the cheapest way to control a lot of ppl to make them believe in some higher being that will judge over their "sins"... wtf... you make ppl fear something, so they do whatever you want...
I wonder why we don't see many debates on specific "dark" issues of religions (any religion), such as treatment of women, punishment and racism, on mainstream media.
Why noone goes on tv to say : Here folks, this and this was said in the Bible or Koran or whatever, and it is controversial. MILLIONS have suffered because of these wicked ideas (and in the absence of real reformation, they will still do in the future).
The opinions on this are this and this. Make up your own mind.
We do now talk alot about tried and failed 'ideologies' like communism or fascism or whatnot, but religion.. is the closet with the skeletons I guess...
There's plenty of criticism of christianity in the media, and even though I'm a christian myself I have no problem with this. Actually I agree on a lot of the criticism. It's always a good idea to be very sceptical of people claiming to be closer to God than others I think.
The founder of protestantism, which I observe, Martin Luther was very critical of catholicism back in the 1500's, so it's a tradition that goes a long way back in our culture.
In Denmark we also have a lot of debate and criticism of Islam currently, and I think this religion/ideology needs that, if it's ever going to become compatible with our western secular societies.
But this is a relatively new thing. If we go back just 10 years there was almost no criticism of islam, and anyone pointing out any problems with islam were always accused of being racist.
I don't know excactly how this change in the public oppinion happened, but it has been a long and hard process for the front runners, who had to put up with being almost bashed to death by the politically correct elite on a daily basis. Then after a while everyone got tired of all this political correctness, and now we can now discuss this issue rather openly in Denmark without getting all kinds of horrible labels attached.
The founder of protestantism, which I observe, Martin Luther was very critical of catholicism back in the 1500's, so it's a tradition that goes a long way back in our culture.
In Denmark we also have a lot of debate and criticism of Islam currently, and I think this religion/ideology needs that, if it's ever going to become compatible with our western secular societies.
But this is a relatively new thing. If we go back just 10 years there was almost no criticism of islam, and anyone pointing out any problems with islam were always accused of being racist.
I don't know excactly how this change in the public oppinion happened, but it has been a long and hard process for the front runners, who had to put up with being almost bashed to death by the politically correct elite on a daily basis. Then after a while everyone got tired of all this political correctness, and now we can now discuss this issue rather openly in Denmark without getting all kinds of horrible labels attached.
Quote:
If I see a ugly fat girl walking down the street, i have the legal right to go up to her and say "Oh my god! Your are is so damn ugly! Disgusting, how can you go out like this?".
Quote:
I have the right to do that because of freedom of speech...
You are wrong. In what country and according to what lawas are you allowed to insult people as in your example?
mri: Noone can stop him from saying it. However, they can lock him up for it.
if they lock you up for saying this then that's not about freedom of speech.
But as a rule of thumb: your rights might not affect other peoples rights.
in this example the girl has the right to live happily, despite of - or because of - her ugliness and weight, and you should not damage this right only to express your "free opinion".
But as a rule of thumb: your rights might not affect other peoples rights.
in this example the girl has the right to live happily, despite of - or because of - her ugliness and weight, and you should not damage this right only to express your "free opinion".
I don't think hurting other people's emotions should be a ciriminal offence. People gotta grow up so they don't start whining if someone calls them an ugly bitch or whatevah.
dubmood mentiond "legal right" and "right to do that because of freedom of speech". If you want to get some idea what most countries consider "customary" international law, you could read United Nation's Universal Declaration of Human Rights: http://www.unhchr.ch/udhr/lang/eng.htm
Article 12
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference [...], nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
Article 19
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
Article 29
2. In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, [...].
Article 12
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference [...], nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
Article 19
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
Article 29
2. In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, [...].
"Let freedom ring with a shotgun blast"
