Total Posts:48|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Controversies About Islam Or Prophet Muhammad

Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2015 3:28:52 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
- I am really bored for the moment. So fire away, attack!

(& please no trolling & insults).
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,124
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2015 8:03:19 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/12/2015 3:28:52 AM, Yassine wrote:
- I am really bored for the moment. So fire away, attack!

(& please no trolling & insults).

What does the average Muslim do about drawings/sculptures of Muhammad?
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2015 8:11:09 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/12/2015 8:03:19 AM, Skepticalone wrote:

What does the average Muslim do about drawings/sculptures of Muhammad?

- He shouldn't do such things.
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,124
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2015 8:21:48 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/12/2015 8:11:09 AM, Yassine wrote:
At 5/12/2015 8:03:19 AM, Skepticalone wrote:

What does the average Muslim do about drawings/sculptures of Muhammad?

- He shouldn't do such things.

What does the average Muslim think about drawings/sculptures of Muhammad?
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2015 8:22:59 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/12/2015 8:21:48 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 5/12/2015 8:11:09 AM, Yassine wrote:
At 5/12/2015 8:03:19 AM, Skepticalone wrote:

What does the average Muslim do about drawings/sculptures of Muhammad?

- He shouldn't do such things.

What does the average Muslim think about drawings/sculptures of Muhammad?

- That he shouldn't do such things! Duh!
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,124
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2015 8:27:11 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/12/2015 8:22:59 AM, Yassine wrote:
At 5/12/2015 8:21:48 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 5/12/2015 8:11:09 AM, Yassine wrote:
At 5/12/2015 8:03:19 AM, Skepticalone wrote:

What does the average Muslim do about drawings/sculptures of Muhammad?

- He shouldn't do such things.

What does the average Muslim think about drawings/sculptures of Muhammad?

- That he shouldn't do such things! Duh!

Haha, sorry, I read into your first answer. What about other people who are not Muslims making images of Muhammad?
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2015 8:43:50 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/12/2015 8:27:11 AM, Skepticalone wrote:

Haha, sorry, I read into your first answer. What about other people who are not Muslims making images of Muhammad?

- Prophet Muhammad's depiction is taken way too seriously by westerners. It is though not that big of a deal in Islam, especially amongst the Shi'a.

- It's generally not allowed to depict any animate being, not just the Prophet. & Muslims frankly don't care if Prophet Muhammad was depicted by non-muslims, as long as they don't shove it in their faces. So, for instance, a statue of Muhammad in public, or in a museum is probably a bad idea, that if the state wishes to have good relations with the muslims nations & the muslim people.

- It's not the depiction that's a problem, it's defamation & ignoble provocation. The so called 'depictions' of Prophet Muhammad, aren't really depiction of himself, as the great man he is, they are just smeared statements by indecent ignorant characters, not worth anybody's time.
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,124
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2015 8:50:21 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/12/2015 8:43:50 AM, Yassine wrote:
At 5/12/2015 8:27:11 AM, Skepticalone wrote:

Haha, sorry, I read into your first answer. What about other people who are not Muslims making images of Muhammad?

- Prophet Muhammad's depiction is taken way too seriously by westerners. It is though not that big of a deal in Islam, especially amongst the Shi'a.

- It's generally not allowed to depict any animate being, not just the Prophet. & Muslims frankly don't care if Prophet Muhammad was depicted by non-muslims, as long as they don't shove it in their faces. So, for instance, a statue of Muhammad in public, or in a museum is probably a bad idea, that if the state wishes to have good relations with the muslims nations & the muslim people.

- It's not the depiction that's a problem, it's defamation & ignoble provocation. The so called 'depictions' of Prophet Muhammad, aren't really depiction of himself, as the great man he is, they are just smeared statements by indecent ignorant characters, not worth anybody's time.

Who/what is the Shi'a, and who are you referring to when you say "westerners"?
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2015 8:54:09 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/12/2015 8:50:21 AM, Skepticalone wrote:

Who/what is the Shi'a, and who are you referring to when you say "westerners"?

- Shi'a are a political/theological denomination of Islam, as opposed to Sunnah, or Ibadiyyah.

- I mean by westerners: Europeans, & the inhabitants of the Americas.
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...
celestialtorahteacher
Posts: 1,369
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2015 8:58:15 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
But Yassine, you are treating Muhammad as if he were still alive and could feel insults. Isn't that rather absurd? How can Moses feel any slights to his honor or any ancient dead man. I'm sorry but to us in the West what we are seeing is Muhammadan idol worship, creating idols of a dead man in order form loyalty oaths to this weird belief that dead people feel dishonor, especially when Muhammadans are willing to go the extra mile and kill people for perceived slights to dead people's dignity. What it really is is Muhammadan ego's unable to deal with critics and turn to rage to stop them. Your religion fosters rage reaction instead of rational thought as in our times, NO ONE has the right to dictate what others think or say about Anything as long as no physical harm is being done. Perceived harm to egos of dead people is not rational. Muhammadanism is not a rational religion and fosters rage where tolerance should be taking place.
celestialtorahteacher
Posts: 1,369
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2015 9:03:43 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Plus it is those with dark secrets to hide who fear critics. Those with no secrets and who work for the good of all have nothing to fear from critics. Only those who do not have the good of all fear them lest their deceitful agendas become known.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,623
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2015 9:11:31 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/12/2015 8:43:50 AM, Yassine wrote:
At 5/12/2015 8:27:11 AM, Skepticalone wrote:

Haha, sorry, I read into your first answer. What about other people who are not Muslims making images of Muhammad?

- Prophet Muhammad's depiction is taken way too seriously by westerners. It is though not that big of a deal in Islam, especially amongst the Shi'a.

- It's generally not allowed to depict any animate being, not just the Prophet. & Muslims frankly don't care if Prophet Muhammad was depicted by non-muslims, as long as they don't shove it in their faces. So, for instance, a statue of Muhammad in public, or in a museum is probably a bad idea, that if the state wishes to have good relations with the muslims nations & the muslim people.

That sure looks like a threat.

- It's not the depiction that's a problem, it's defamation & ignoble provocation. The so called 'depictions' of Prophet Muhammad, aren't really depiction of himself, as the great man he is, they are just smeared statements by indecent ignorant characters, not worth anybody's time.

Then, why do we observe violence and killing if it's not worth anybody's time?
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,124
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2015 9:12:19 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/12/2015 8:54:09 AM, Yassine wrote:
At 5/12/2015 8:50:21 AM, Skepticalone wrote:

Who/what is the Shi'a, and who are you referring to when you say "westerners"?

- Shi'a are a political/theological denomination of Islam, as opposed to Sunnah, or Ibadiyyah.

Do you feel that these other denominations take drawing Muhammad more seriously?

- I mean by westerners: Europeans, & the inhabitants of the Americas.

I think it is fair for non Muslim westerners to take the drawing of Muhammad/discussion of Islam very seriously since a non violent act can bring death unjustly. In these cases, it is a religious judgement imposed upon non believers for doing something that is not restricted in the world they live in.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2015 9:53:12 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/12/2015 9:12:19 AM, Skepticalone wrote:

Do you feel that these other denominations take drawing Muhammad more seriously?

- Shi'a are ok with drawing animate beings, Sunnah generally aren't. The Prophet is an animate being, hence my point.

I think it is fair for non Muslim westerners to take the drawing of Muhammad/discussion of Islam very seriously since a non violent act can bring death unjustly.

- Non violent?! Insulting the gods & prophets of other people is the most pure from of aggression against fellow human beings. Western Laws don't see humans as dignified beings deserving respect & decency. They are blind as what constitute freedom of religion or from religion & what constitute human degradation & utterly uncivilised behaviour.

In these cases, it is a religious judgement imposed upon non believers for doing something that is not restricted in the world they live in.

- It's not a religious judgement! Muslims are not responsible for punishing non-muslims for not following Shari'a. Smearing what other people hold sacred & dear is disgusting & a clear sign of barbarism, & is strictly against any broad concept of humanity.
- Here is an analogy, imagine the not-so-far-fetched scenario, where US white citizens consider black slaves as less than human beings & kill them at whim, & when they go to Africa, some of them get attacked & get killed, for revenge. & despite their horrible inhumane behaviour, they complain: "it is a religious judgement imposed upon [us] non believers for doing something that is not restricted in the world [we] live in". [& it is indeed a religious judgement, for killing a slave warrants death penalty in Shari'a]
=> Muslims may not be responsible to call into account non-muslims for their unlawful acts, but that doesn't mean these unlawful acts are justified & should not warrant undesirable consequences. On the contrary, they inherently do warrant bad consequences, for they are simply unjust.
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,623
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2015 10:04:54 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/12/2015 9:53:12 AM, Yassine wrote:
At 5/12/2015 9:12:19 AM, Skepticalone wrote:

Do you feel that these other denominations take drawing Muhammad more seriously?

- Shi'a are ok with drawing animate beings, Sunnah generally aren't. The Prophet is an animate being, hence my point.

I think it is fair for non Muslim westerners to take the drawing of Muhammad/discussion of Islam very seriously since a non violent act can bring death unjustly.

- Non violent?! Insulting the gods & prophets of other people is the most pure from of aggression against fellow human beings.

LOL. Sorry, but that is free speech and is not aggression of any kind.

Here's we see the problem with Islam and it's condoning of violent retribution against others when it believes it is being attacked. Muslims will find any excuse to resort to violence as a result of feigned "aggressions".

Western Laws don't see humans as dignified beings deserving respect & decency.

That is a blatant lie.

They are blind as what constitute freedom of religion or from religion & what constitute human degradation & utterly uncivilised behaviour.

Yes, you want freedom of religion, but you refuse to give freedom of speech. Sorry, doesn't work that way.

In these cases, it is a religious judgement imposed upon non believers for doing something that is not restricted in the world they live in.

- It's not a religious judgement! Muslims are not responsible for punishing non-muslims for not following Shari'a. Smearing what other people hold sacred & dear is disgusting & a clear sign of barbarism, & is strictly against any broad concept of humanity.

It's called "Free Speech" and you need to accept it if you want freedom of religion.

- Here is an analogy, imagine the not-so-far-fetched scenario, where US white citizens consider black slaves as less than human beings & kill them at whim, & when they go to Africa, some of them get attacked & get killed, for revenge. & despite their horrible inhumane behaviour, they complain: "it is a religious judgement imposed upon [us] non believers for doing something that is not restricted in the world [we] live in". [& it is indeed a religious judgement, for killing a slave warrants death penalty in Shari'a]

Wow, what a pathetic strawman. You equate free speech to killing humans.

=> Muslims may not be responsible to call into account non-muslims for their unlawful acts, but that doesn't mean these unlawful acts are justified & should not warrant undesirable consequences. On the contrary, they inherently do warrant bad consequences, for they are simply unjust.

In other words, you will react violently to free speech and justify it with any lie you wish to make up.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,124
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2015 10:12:01 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/12/2015 9:53:12 AM, Yassine wrote:
At 5/12/2015 9:12:19 AM, Skepticalone wrote:

Do you feel that these other denominations take drawing Muhammad more seriously?

- Shi'a are ok with drawing animate beings, Sunnah generally aren't. The Prophet is an animate being, hence my point.

I think it is fair for non Muslim westerners to take the drawing of Muhammad/discussion of Islam very seriously since a non violent act can bring death unjustly.

- Non violent?! Insulting the gods & prophets of other people is the most pure from of aggression against fellow human beings. Western Laws don't see humans as dignified beings deserving respect & decency. They are blind as what constitute freedom of religion or from religion & what constitute human degradation & utterly uncivilised behaviour.

Yes, non-violent. It's not like the artist is stabbing Muslims with his pencil. Even if I did agree drawing Muhammad was wrong (which I don't), I cannot comprehend how murder is a just punishment. Uncivilized behavior is killing people for what they draw or say.

In these cases, it is a religious judgement imposed upon non believers for doing something that is not restricted in the world they live in.

- It's not a religious judgement! Muslims are not responsible for punishing non-muslims for not following Shari'a. Smearing what other people hold sacred & dear is disgusting & a clear sign of barbarism, & is strictly against any broad concept of humanity.

Were there a lot of barbarian artists? I don't think barbarism means what you think it means.

http://cdn.hellogiggles.com...

- Here is an analogy, imagine the not-so-far-fetched scenario, where US white citizens consider black slaves as less than human beings & kill them at whim, & when they go to Africa, some of them get attacked & get killed, for revenge. & despite their horrible inhumane behaviour, they complain: "it is a religious judgement imposed upon [us] non believers for doing something that is not restricted in the world [we] live in". [& it is indeed a religious judgement, for killing a slave warrants death penalty in Shari'a]

You are equating slavery and murder to free speech? Yea, I'm going to reject that horrible analogy.

=> Muslims may not be responsible to call into account non-muslims for their unlawful acts, but that doesn't mean these unlawful acts are justified & should not warrant undesirable consequences. On the contrary, they inherently do warrant bad consequences, for they are simply unjust.

There can not be an unlawful act when there is no law. Non Muslims have no laws regarding Muhammad. It is barbaric to murder people because they break non existent laws.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2015 10:27:22 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/12/2015 10:12:01 AM, Skepticalone wrote:

Yes, non-violent. It's not like the artist is stabbing Muslims with his pencil.

- Just worse than violence.

Even if I did agree drawing Muhammad was wrong (which I don't), I cannot comprehend how murder is a just punishment. Uncivilized behavior is killing people for what they draw or say.

- Murder is not even a punishment, it's a reaction. & it seems you concede what I am saying, uncivilised/unjust behaviour warrants uncivilised/unjust reaction. Maybe murder is worse than defaming a man sacred to 1/4th the human race, & maybe the opposite is true, depends on how you look at it. Either way, barbarism leads to more barbarism.

Were there a lot of barbarian artists? I don't think barbarism means what you think it means.

- It means uncivilised primitive behaviour.

You are equating slavery and murder to free speech? Yea, I'm going to reject that horrible analogy.

- Not because you attach 'free' to speech you make it automatically justifiable!!! I can equally say: "free action" & think it's supposed to be a good thing! Free action can mean killing at whim, as it can also mean freedom to act honourably. The same goes for speech, it can be honourable, & it can be despicable & inhumane.
- The analogy is an exaggerated representation of inhumane acts, particularly, in our case, inhumane speech.

There can not be an unlawful act when there is no law.

- Unlawful as in Immoral/Unethical.

Non Muslims have no laws regarding Muhammad. It is barbaric to murder people because they break non existent laws.

- Back to my analogy. It's barbaric to murder slave white owners because they break non existent laws.
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,623
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2015 10:57:30 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/12/2015 10:27:22 AM, Yassine wrote:
At 5/12/2015 10:12:01 AM, Skepticalone wrote:

Yes, non-violent. It's not like the artist is stabbing Muslims with his pencil.

- Just worse than violence.

Drawing cartoons is worse than violence? LOL. The very tiny bit of credibility you may have had has now disappeared completely.


- Murder is not even a punishment, it's a reaction. & it seems you concede what I am saying, uncivilised/unjust behaviour warrants uncivilised/unjust reaction. Maybe murder is worse than defaming a man sacred to 1/4th the human race, & maybe the opposite is true, depends on how you look at it. Either way, barbarism leads to more barbarism.

Yes, in your very narrow minded view, free speech leads to violence.


- It means uncivilised primitive behaviour.

Using violence is uncivilized, primitive behavior. Free speech is not. If that were the case, then everyone who uses free speech is promoting uncivilized, primitive behavior.


- Not because you attach 'free' to speech you make it automatically justifiable!!!

And yet, that's exactly what it is , free speech, no attachments required.

I can equally say: "free action" & think it's supposed to be a good thing! Free action can mean killing at whim, as it can also mean freedom to act honourably. The same goes for speech, it can be honourable, & it can be despicable & inhumane.

LOL. Nice strawman. "Free Action" LOL.

- The analogy is an exaggerated representation of inhumane acts, particularly, in our case, inhumane speech.

Yes, you exaggerate well beyond anything we're talking about here.

There can not be an unlawful act when there is no law.

- Unlawful as in Immoral/Unethical.

Strawman.

Non Muslims have no laws regarding Muhammad. It is barbaric to murder people because they break non existent laws.

- Back to my analogy. It's barbaric to murder slave white owners because they break non existent laws.

Strawman. This has nothing to do with free speech.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,124
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2015 11:21:54 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/12/2015 10:27:22 AM, Yassine wrote:
At 5/12/2015 10:12:01 AM, Skepticalone wrote:

Yes, non-violent. It's not like the artist is stabbing Muslims with his pencil.

- Just worse than violence.

Even if I did agree drawing Muhammad was wrong (which I don't), I cannot comprehend how murder is a just punishment. Uncivilized behavior is killing people for what they draw or say.

- Murder is not even a punishment, it's a reaction. & it seems you concede what I am saying, uncivilised/unjust behaviour warrants uncivilised/unjust reaction. Maybe murder is worse than defaming a man sacred to 1/4th the human race, & maybe the opposite is true, depends on how you look at it. Either way, barbarism leads to more barbarism.

Well, at least you admit the murders are unjust.

Were there a lot of barbarian artists? I don't think barbarism means what you think it means.

- It means uncivilised primitive behaviour.


You are equating slavery and murder to free speech? Yea, I'm going to reject that horrible analogy.

- Not because you attach 'free' to speech you make it automatically justifiable!!! I can equally say: "free action" & think it's supposed to be a good thing! Free action can mean killing at whim, as it can also mean freedom to act honourably. The same goes for speech, it can be honourable, & it can be despicable & inhumane.

We don't determine what free speech is by how popular it is. Free speech is having the ability to express our thoughts even if it offends. Essentially free speech is free thought. Limiting free speech would be/is an attempt to limit free thoughts. So if someone's thought exposes a tender spot of Islam, murder is not a civilized response. If the the murder is a reaction, as you suggested, then it is reflective of individuals who are ignorant of civilized concepts and are primitive themselves. I don't believe that is the case, though. I consider these continued attacks as seeking to frighten the bad thoughts away. Either way, it's wrong.

- The analogy is an exaggerated representation of inhumane acts, particularly, in our case, inhumane speech.

There can not be an unlawful act when there is no law.

- Unlawful as in Immoral/Unethical.

Same difference. It is not immoral for non Muslims to draw Muhammad.

Non Muslims have no laws regarding Muhammad. It is barbaric to murder people because they break non existent laws.

- Back to my analogy. It's barbaric to murder slave white owners because they break non existent laws.

There are laws against murder. Again, your analogy was horrible. If it were a horse, we would have to shoot it.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Harper
Posts: 374
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2015 11:48:33 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/12/2015 10:27:22 AM, Yassine wrote:
At 5/12/2015 10:12:01 AM, Skepticalone wrote:

Yes, non-violent. It's not like the artist is stabbing Muslims with his pencil.

- Just worse than violence.
This touches into a question of the weight of actions. Is there any insult that is more devastating than death? If you are religious and believe in an afterlife, death is less bitter to you whereas religious attacks will be ranked higher. If, like me, you are secular, death is a much bigger consequence for you. This is why the basic existential questions (god, nature of existence, afterlife(s), etc.) are imperative-- any philosophical question after them is inherently rooted in them.

Even if I did agree drawing Muhammad was wrong (which I don't), I cannot comprehend how murder is a just punishment. Uncivilized behavior is killing people for what they draw or say.

- Murder is not even a punishment, it's a reaction. & it seems you concede what I am saying, uncivilised/unjust behaviour warrants uncivilised/unjust reaction. Maybe murder is worse than defaming a man sacred to 1/4th the human race, & maybe the opposite is true, depends on how you look at it. Either way, barbarism leads to more barbarism.
Though I would argue that not all barbaric acts are alike. Disrespecting cherished beliefs is not equal to murder, and even as a reaction is a bit much.

A really good example that is often brought up is that of the Westboro Baptist Church. Their members are notorious for protesting soldiers' funerals with personally and religiously denegrating signs. To further pour salt in the wounds of an already mourning family is an incredibly barbaric act. Did anyone stop them, though? No, because we value living in a country where no one is afraid of speaking their mind more than one where we don't have our beliefs disparaged.

Were there a lot of barbarian artists? I don't think barbarism means what you think it means.

- It means uncivilised primitive behaviour.

You are equating slavery and murder to free speech? Yea, I'm going to reject that horrible analogy.

- Not because you attach 'free' to speech you make it automatically justifiable!!! I can equally say: "free action" & think it's supposed to be a good thing! Free action can mean killing at whim, as it can also mean freedom to act honourably. The same goes for speech, it can be honourable, & it can be despicable & inhumane.
- The analogy is an exaggerated representation of inhumane acts, particularly, in our case, inhumane speech.
But inhumane acts are much more traumatizing than any speech. Free speech is celebrated as almost an absolute (in my opinion it should be an absolute) in the West because ideas are valuable, whether or not people agree or like them. One cannot simply shut down any speech they personally consider inhumane, because what is or isn't inhumane or hate speech is not clearly defined. People might as well claim that opposing views on the abortion debate for example are inhumane and shut them down, too. How do we tell the difference between sincere conviction and disrespectful satire? Many times these lines are blurred and so restricting speech gets tyrannical really fast.

Already the West has tasted the consequences of restricting "hate speech". A Harvard professor some years ago made a well reasoned argument about why there are more men in top math programs and was fired for "hate speech against women". Many philosophers, like David Stove, are dropping out of academia because of its adherance to politically correct free speech. Additionally many people, living in Europe especially, are afraid of expressing their opinion about the holocaust because many countries have made questioning it "hate speech" and the punishment ranges anywhere between an expensive fine to prison. Restriction of speech is killing the intellectual life of our countries as we speak; the internet has become the final frontier in free speech and even that's slipping away for some of us.

There can not be an unlawful act when there is no law.

- Unlawful as in Immoral/Unethical.

Non Muslims have no laws regarding Muhammad. It is barbaric to murder people because they break non existent laws.

- Back to my analogy. It's barbaric to murder slave white owners because they break non existent laws.
Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2015 12:10:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/12/2015 11:21:54 AM, Skepticalone wrote:

Well, at least you admit the murders are unjust.

- Seriously! -_-

We don't determine what free speech is by how popular it is. Free speech is having the ability to express our thoughts even if it offends. Essentially free speech is free thought. Limiting free speech would be/is an attempt to limit free thoughts.

- Free speech is a type of Free action, consequences, means, ends & motives should be taken into consideration in restricting what it should & shouldn't be. If you 'think' of killing someone, the law isn't gonna let you, is it! That's not limitation of free thought. Restrictions against shouting in an office building or a theatre: "Fire", are these attempts to limit free thought!!!
- So, in your opinion limiting free action would be/is an attempt to limit free thoughts.

So if someone's thought exposes a tender spot of Islam, murder is not a civilized response.

- We are talking about a specific topic, which is depicting the Prophet in a derogatory manner, which is essentially a direct insult & degradation against Islam & all that it stands for, & against the Muslim identity & nation at large.
- & murder is not a civilised response, evidently. That doesn't mean what provoked it is civilised!!!

If the the murder is a reaction, as you suggested, then it is reflective of individuals who are ignorant of civilized concepts and are primitive themselves.

- Much like the one who provoked these murders, maybe in a lesser degree (or greater, depending on which moral approach you take).

I don't believe that is the case, though. I consider these continued attacks as seeking to frighten the bad thoughts away. Either way, it's wrong.

- I agree, Tolerance should involve respect & honouring the opposition, if you disagree with them. Not disrespect & dishonour in the deepest sense of the word. This does not involve academic need or curiosity, on the contrary, such approaches must be encouraged. For these are done with credible motives, with respectable means (that is authenticity), to respectable ends (free thought). . .

Same difference. It is not immoral for non Muslims to draw Muhammad.

- What's that have to do with anything! It is unethical to insult or defame a fellow human being, let alone a great man, let alone a Prophet so dear & so sacred to a huge chunk of the human race. That besides the fact that the consequences are big in the latter case. If you insult simultaneously the mothers of 1.7bn people, there is a good chance a few of those are willing to kill you for it.

There are laws against murder. Again, your analogy was horrible. If it were a horse, we would have to shoot it.

- Not in my analogy there isn't. That is, there weren't laws against murdering slaves. & now, there aren't any laws against denigrating muslims at large (in the States that is). Neither case implies that No Laws means No Immorality. Not having laws enjoining real Tolerance between citizens & human beings at large doesn't mean the acts carried out are necessarily Just.
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...
Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2015 12:37:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/12/2015 11:48:33 AM, Harper wrote:

This touches into a question of the weight of actions. Is there any insult that is more devastating than death? If you are religious and believe in an afterlife, death is less bitter to you whereas religious attacks will be ranked higher. If, like me, you are secular, death is a much bigger consequence for you. This is why the basic existential questions (god, nature of existence, afterlife(s), etc.) are imperative-- any philosophical question after them is inherently rooted in them.

- True, It would depend on how you look at it.

A really good example that is often brought up is that of the Westboro Baptist Church. Their members are notorious for protesting soldiers' funerals with personally and religiously denegrating signs. To further pour salt in the wounds of an already mourning family is an incredibly barbaric act. Did anyone stop them, though? No, because we value living in a country where no one is afraid of speaking their mind more than one where we don't have our beliefs disparaged.

- This is a brilliant example, I am gonna steal it from you. Our speech have consequences, much like our actions. Allowing such a ignoble act of denigrating soldiers, heroes of their nation, & their mourning family is unjust to them. Of what worth is law if it brings more harm, & less good to the people!

But inhumane acts are much more traumatizing than any speech. Free speech is celebrated as almost an absolute (in my opinion it should be an absolute) in the West because ideas are valuable, whether or not people agree or like them.

- They are, no doubt. But once there are consequences, once free speech is done as the expense to the well-being, inward or outward, of others then there should be laws restricting & dealing with it, in the public sphere that is. Sure, ideas are important, & people disagree, but free speech is neither objectively good, neither an absolute. & it never is. Call for terrorism & see where you find yourself, terrorism is an idea too!
- Free speech is EXACTLY like free action, for both are essentially acts that have consequences, & often the former has much considerable consequences than the latter.

One cannot simply shut down any speech they personally consider inhumane, because what is or isn't inhumane or hate speech is not clearly defined.

- Humane/Moral/Ethical Acts are defined are they not? There are ethical systems employed in western Legal Theory that justify these things, Consequentialism, Utilitarianism, Justifiability, Positivism. . .

People might as well claim that opposing views on the abortion debate for example are inhumane and shut them down, too.

- On the contrary, that is what Tolerance is about, allow the opposition not just to speak of, but to act on what they believe is lawful or unlawful. But that shouldn't be an excuse to abuse or denigrate the opposition, physically or mentally.

How do we tell the difference between sincere conviction and disrespectful satire? Many times these lines are blurred and so restricting speech gets tyrannical really fast.

- The same goes for Acts in a general sense, but we have laws that involve motive, consequences, circumstances. . . Speech is a particular form of an Act.

Already the West has tasted the consequences of restricting "hate speech". A Harvard professor some years ago made a well reasoned argument about why there are more men in top math programs and was fired for "hate speech against women". Many philosophers, like David Stove, are dropping out of academia because of its adherance to politically correct free speech. Additionally many people, living in Europe especially, are afraid of expressing their opinion about the holocaust because many countries have made questioning it "hate speech" and the punishment ranges anywhere between an expensive fine to prison. Restriction of speech is killing the intellectual life of our countries as we speak; the internet has become the final frontier in free speech and even that's slipping away for some of us.

- You're arguing for exactly my point here. Tolerance, good, Barbarism, bad. (Tolerance without respect is self-defeating).
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2015 12:43:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Yassine, it is free speech and free expression to depict Muhammad.

Free speech is only limited when it could (directly, rarely indirectly) potentially cause harm to/by rational people.

Yelling bomb in an airport can cause people to panic and cause harm to people (as a rational person would panic in that situation).
Same with yelling fire in a crowded building.

Drawing Muhammad would not cause harm to a rational person, it is an irrational response to murder people, and a rational individual would not respond in such a manner. Because of this, drawing Muhammad is protected by free speech and free expression.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2015 12:53:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/12/2015 12:43:28 PM, SNP1 wrote:
Yassine, it is free speech and free expression to depict Muhammad.

Free speech is only limited when it could (directly, rarely indirectly) potentially cause harm to/by rational people.

- Free act is only limited when it could (directly, rarely indirectly) potentially cause harm to/by rational people.

Drawing Muhammad would not cause harm to a rational person;

- Depicting Prophet Muhammad in a denigrating manner causes serious harm to 1/4th the Earth's population.

it is an irrational response to murder people, and a rational individual would not respond in such a manner.

- Why that is the case?! Rational =/= Moral.

Because of this, drawing Muhammad is protected by free speech and free expression.

- One, I am speaking of depicting Prophet Muhammad in a denigrating manner, which is a denigration to all muslims who ever lived.
- Two, I am basically saying some Western Laws concerning Free Speech are bad, as in unethical & not well thought of.
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2015 12:58:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/12/2015 12:53:06 PM, Yassine wrote:
At 5/12/2015 12:43:28 PM, SNP1 wrote:
Yassine, it is free speech and free expression to depict Muhammad.

Free speech is only limited when it could (directly, rarely indirectly) potentially cause harm to/by rational people.

- Free act is only limited when it could (directly, rarely indirectly) potentially cause harm to/by rational people.

Drawing Muhammad would not cause harm to a rational person;

- Depicting Prophet Muhammad in a denigrating manner causes serious harm to 1/4th the Earth's population.

It might hurt their feelers, but it isn't harming them.

Let's say that there is someone whose feelers are hurt when people talk about Islam, should they be allowed to kill anyone that speaks of Islam now?

it is an irrational response to murder people, and a rational individual would not respond in such a manner.

- Why that is the case?!

Ever heard on an eye-for-an-eye?

Drawing Muhammad hurts people's feelings, so a rational person (following eye-for-an-eye) would hurt their feelings. Killing is not equal to hurting ones feelings.

Rational =/= Moral.

When did I ever bring up morality? I am a moral nihilist.

Because of this, drawing Muhammad is protected by free speech and free expression.

- One, I am speaking of depicting Prophet Muhammad in a denigrating manner, which is a denigration to all muslims who ever lived.

So it hurts their feelers.

- Two, I am basically saying some Western Laws concerning Free Speech are bad, as in unethical & not well thought of.

How is it "not well thought of"?
And, defend that morality exists and that there is an objective morality if you want to pull the "it's unethical" card.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Harper
Posts: 374
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2015 1:05:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/12/2015 12:43:28 PM, SNP1 wrote:
Yassine, it is free speech and free expression to depict Muhammad.

Free speech is only limited when it could (directly, rarely indirectly) potentially cause harm to/by rational people.

Yelling bomb in an airport can cause people to panic and cause harm to people (as a rational person would panic in that situation).
Same with yelling fire in a crowded building.
But should it be illegal, though? I really don't think so-- the airports could punish people who do that (ban and/or fine them) because that is their right as a private business. Government, however, is a different story. Government should only intervene when basic human rights (such as right to life and property) are threatened.

Drawing Muhammad would not cause harm to a rational person, it is an irrational response to murder people, and a rational individual would not respond in such a manner. Because of this, drawing Muhammad is protected by free speech and free expression.
Like I was saying to Yassine, this judgement of rationality depends on individual philosophy. If you are Muslim, an insult to your religion is greater than any other form of denigration since religion is a first priority for most Muslims.
Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2015 1:18:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/12/2015 12:58:32 PM, SNP1 wrote:

It might hurt their feelers, but it isn't harming them.

- It is, it's just your idea of harm is a poor one.

Let's say that there is someone whose feelers are hurt when people talk about Islam, should they be allowed to kill anyone that speaks of Islam now?

- To bring up the example Harper proposed: "the Westboro Baptist Church. Their members are notorious for protesting soldiers' funerals with personally and religiously denegrating signs. To further pour salt in the wounds of an already mourning family is an incredibly barbaric act."
- So, let's say that there are some mourning family whose 'feelers' are hurt when people (WBC) denigrate the funeral of their dead soldier, should they be allowed to kill anyone that does that now?
- The moral basis from which you speak of is a low one! It allows for inhumane barbaric behaviour disguised as Tolerance!

Ever heard on an eye-for-an-eye?

Drawing Muhammad hurts people's feelings, so a rational person (following eye-for-an-eye) would hurt their feelings. Killing is not equal to hurting ones feelings.

- This approach is as subjective is it can get. Any 'rational' person can make his won rule "a toe for a nose", "a foot for a head". . . this is arbitrary.

When did I ever bring up morality? I am a moral nihilist.

- The more reason you shouldn't defend such a system with low morality (in this particular case, I am not generalising).

So it hurts their feelers.

- Or you can preach terrorism to the victims to 9/11! Awww, it hurts their feelers!

How is it "not well thought of"?

- They generate much hate & much discrimination against a huge chunk of the population. & they are essentially incompatible with the spirit of the alleged Tolerance they profess.

And, defend that morality exists and that there is an objective morality if you want to pull the "it's unethical" card.

- Either way, western morals in this case are bad. Claiming otherwise is hypocritical.
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,124
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2015 1:24:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/12/2015 12:10:16 PM, Yassine wrote:
At 5/12/2015 11:21:54 AM, Skepticalone wrote:

Well, at least you admit the murders are unjust.

- Seriously! -_-

It seems like you are defending such actions.

We don't determine what free speech is by how popular it is. Free speech is having the ability to express our thoughts even if it offends. Essentially free speech is free thought. Limiting free speech would be/is an attempt to limit free thoughts.

- Free speech is a type of Free action, consequences, means, ends & motives should be taken into consideration in restricting what it should & shouldn't be. If you 'think' of killing someone, the law isn't gonna let you, is it!

Actually, it is not against the law to think of killing someone.

That's not limitation of free thought. Restrictions against shouting in an office building or a theatre: "Fire", are these attempts to limit free thought!!!

There are specific limitations to free speech, but I see no reason to conflate "Fire!" And a picture of Muhammad.

- So, in your opinion limiting free action would be/is an attempt to limit free thoughts.

No. I don't view action and speech as the same thing. Speech is expression of thought. Action is a manifestation of thought.

So if someone's thought exposes a tender spot of Islam, murder is not a civilized response.

- We are talking about a specific topic, which is depicting the Prophet in a derogatory manner, which is essentially a direct insult & degradation against Islam & all that it stands for, & against the Muslim identity & nation at large.
- & murder is not a civilised response, evidently. That doesn't mean what provoked it is civilised!!!

If the the murder is a reaction, as you suggested, then it is reflective of individuals who are ignorant of civilized concepts and are primitive themselves.

- Much like the one who provoked these murders, maybe in a lesser degree (or greater, depending on which moral approach you take).

I don't believe that is the case, though. I consider these continued attacks as seeking to frighten the bad thoughts away. Either way, it's wrong.

- I agree, Tolerance should involve respect & honouring the opposition, if you disagree with them. Not disrespect & dishonour in the deepest sense of the word. This does not involve academic need or curiosity, on the contrary, such approaches must be encouraged. For these are done with credible motives, with respectable means (that is authenticity), to respectable ends (free thought). . .

I see no reason to respect something because its adherents demand it. If it is worthy of respect, then it will be earned. Honestly, I don't know that much about Islam except that there are believers willing to kill because of their intolerance and lack of respect for the thoughts of others. That's not the way to earn respect.


Same difference. It is not immoral for non Muslims to draw Muhammad.

- What's that have to do with anything! It is unethical to insult or defame a fellow human being, let alone a great man, let alone a Prophet so dear & so sacred to a huge chunk of the human race.

Yes, but drawing him is not defaming him just because you say so. That is the rule of believers.

That besides the fact that the consequences are big in the latter case. If you insult simultaneously the mothers of 1.7bn people, there is a good chance a few of those are willing to kill you for it.

No, that is ridiculous. I will not kill for words that someone hurls at my mother. I have an obligation to my wife and sons. Killing someone would take me away from my family (injuring my family) and would not make the words go away. Anyone who is willing to kill for such a trivial reason is mentally unstable.

There are laws against murder. Again, your analogy was horrible. If it were a horse, we would have to shoot it.

- Not in my analogy there isn't. That is, there weren't laws against murdering slaves. & now, there aren't any laws against denigrating muslims at large (in the States that is). Neither case implies that No Laws means No Immorality. Not having laws enjoining real Tolerance between citizens & human beings at large doesn't mean the acts carried out are necessarily Just.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten