Did this man deserve a Knighthood??

The Corinthian

Zambia232 wrote:

I can see the reason for them speaking

To date you appear very thin on the ground for arguments as to why something should or should not be acceptable outside of your own personal opinion.

Zambia

The Corinthian wrote:

To date you appear very thin on the ground for arguments as to why something should or should not be acceptable outside of your own personal opinion.

Common Sense.

Would you not agree insulting someone for no good reason or offending them is bad?

Ergo insulting a whole religon for no good reason is also bad.

I dont think knighthood or awards should be given to bad acts.

Cant simplify any more for you.

Zambia

Jackie laughlin wrote:

Someone brought up appropriate behaviour at meetings. At times business meetings can become constrained, unimaginative, unproductive because no one wants to break a cosy consensus. Then it is time to be controversial. Most times these days it's just a matter of telling some twat to speak English and cut the business-speak. It is often wrong to hold one's tongue.

I agree however, I see your piont but you can do this without Swearing I presume or calling the marketing director A SOB or the like?

Jackie laughlin wrote:

Taking this idea into the political arena, offence/iconoclasm is often essential. Most time muslims should be confronted and told that inequality (Yes. I know this is a contested concept.) cruel punishments, ritual slaughter of animals etc. are not going to be tolerated in this society. However, if there is any risk that threats of violence (and I'm not suggesting that any but a tiny number of nutters are involved) will silence any freedom of expression, then ALL democrats must unite in causing insult PRECISELY BECAUSE we still can and in case a situation is allowed to develop in which we can't.

All valid pionts again but what failing(in his opinion) of the Muslim religon was SR trying to address?

The Corinthian

Zambia232 wrote:

Common Sense.

Shorthand for personal opinion.

Would you not agree insulting someone for no good reason or offending them is bad?

Yes I would. However you are basing the definition of what is a good reason upon nothing more than your personal opinion.

Ergo insulting a whole religon for no good reason is also bad.

Except your definition of good reason is flawed.

I dont think knighthood or awards should be given to bad acts.

I agree, but again you're basing all your logic upon a false premise - that your opinion is enough to define a good reason.

Cant simplify any more for you.

Hopefully then, with it this simple, you may note the flaw on your own.

Zambia

The Corinthian wrote:

Shorthand for personal opinion.

Yes I would. However you are basing the definition of what is a good reason upon nothing more than your personal opinion.

Except your definition of good reason is flawed.

I agree, but again you're basing all your logic upon a false premise - that your opinion is enough to define a good reason.

Hopefully then, with it this simple, you may note the flaw on your own.

Really are a bit of a one trick pony on this he ...:)

What is flawed about my good reason? The very piont I am making is SR did not have one, care to refute and tell me what the reason for the verses in the story was.

The Corinthian

Zambia232 wrote:

Really are a bit of a one trick pony on this he ...:)

What is flawed about my good reason? The very piont I am making is SR did not have one, care to refute and tell me what the reason for the verses in the story was.

What is a good reason? So far all you've said certain things had a good reason in your opinion or did not have a good reason, again in your opinion.

This is the flaw in your argument, you are by dint of you own fuzzy feelings defining things as being worthy or not and have yet given any kind of rational criteria for what gives them worth. If you can do that then your argument might make sense, otherwise you're just coming out with completely subjective rubbish.

Mick86

Zambia232 wrote:

All valid reasons for speaking out or marching Mick now equate that with the Satanic verses what was the piont of it?

Zambia232 wrote:

All valid pionts again but what failing(in his opinion) of the Muslim religon was SR trying to address?

If we assume that Salman has issues with Islam then perhaps Satanic Verses was meant to highlight Islam's unreasoning acceptance of the Koran as the word of God, unchallengable, not open to interpretation and literal. On pain of death.

He seems to have demonstrated that point.

fly_agaric

wes wrote:

A question I never see answered is why is the "West" best friend with the worst religious fanatics in the ME Saudi Arabia. Who fund Mosques around the world, who teach Wahhabism, using oil money.

They have lots of oil for sale. So obvious there is no need to ask the question.

Also - what's the alternative (for the US)? Just think - who would be liable to end up in power there if there were either free elections or some kind of coup?

Jackie laughlin

I tend to swear in order to create emphasis. I'd be more likely to use use "silly wanker" than s.o.b. The point is that needs must. I have gone to meetings and spoken quietly about deadening agreement. Next time I've been more forthright. However, there are times and there are people ... and one simply has to stick it to them!

Read the Satanic Verses if you can endure the stifling boredom of it. It's not offensive. However, if one were committed to being offended in order to stir violence, then offence could be found. That however is neither here nor there. Rushdie is brilliant when speaking about democracy and the freedom on which it depends. Now that the mullahs have issued their threats, it is time to be downright offensive to them. Let's talk about making Rushdie an Irish citizen. That would be a message to the world that if it comes to taking sides between murder and words, we are with Salman.

Voipjunkie

Surely the problem is not with Salman Rushdie but with the inability of some people to deal with criticism in a rational manner or realise that not everyone shares their belief and not everyone has too.

Why should exceptions be made for some muslims because of their inability to accept that not everyone is a muslim or has respect for islam would we accept or in anyway excuse fundamentalist Christians who issued death threats against the makers of Father Ted. Is Father Ted insulting to some christian beliefs yes if you want it to be any christian could get all uppity and insulted therefor to follow the logic should Father Ted be denied an airing or should the writers be denied any award for fear of giving the impression that it is an endorsement of anti christian feeling.


TBH most of us would not have heard of Rushdie or his books if these people had not highlighted it for their own political gain the same as the the Danish cartoons most of us would still be blissfully unaware that the Danes even had cartoons nevermind not particularly funny ones about Islam but for the need for some people to feel insulted and to use them for political advantage.

Voipjunkie

Jackie laughlin wrote:

if it comes to taking sides between murder and words, we are with Salman.

Even if his books are ****e

wes

fly_agaric wrote:

They have lots of oil for sale. So obvious there is no need to ask the question.

Also - what's the alternative (for the US)? Just think - who would be liable to end up in power there if there were either free elections or some kind of coup?

I had a lengthy reply all typed out, but that would have taken things far too off topic. I will say this, in a thread talking about freedom of speech, I find it odd for someone to suggest, that some people don't deserve democracy, as they may make the wrong choice to be rather ironic.

Zambia

The Corinthian wrote:

What is a good reason? So far all you've said certain things had a good reason in your opinion or did not have a good reason, again in your opinion.

This is the flaw in your argument, you are by dint of you own fuzzy feelings defining things as being worthy or not and have yet given any kind of rational criteria for what gives them worth. If you can do that then your argument might make sense, otherwise you're just coming out with completely subjective rubbish.

C'mon thats ridulculous each of us has our own criteria for what we see as a valid reason. I have clearly stated that I would like to see a piont to offensive behavior if it is required pure manners and a respect for other peoples views back that up it.

As there is no law (rightly so) determining levels of this type of behavior. So it falls to each of us to gauge that. It really does depend on a case by case basis.

You are basically asking me to write war and peace on the back of a first class stamp and if I cant them everything I said is rubbish. So in short when your finished sniping from the back I still await your reasoning for the offence caused to elements of the Muslim religon.

Zambia

Mick86 wrote:

If we assume that Salman has issues with Islam then perhaps Satanic Verses was meant to highlight Islam's unreasoning acceptance of the Koran as the word of God, unchallengable, not open to interpretation and literal. On pain of death.

He seems to have demonstrated that point.

Cheers Mick thats the first decent explanantion I have heard.

The Corinthian

Zambia232 wrote:

C'mon thats ridulculous each of us has our own criteria for what we see as a valid reason.

Then articulate that criteria.

I have clearly stated that I would like to see a piont to offensive behavior if it is required pure manners and a respect for other peoples views back that up it.

And if you cannot see that point therefore there is none? Surely even you can see what a ridiculously egocentric argument that is?

As there is no law (rightly so) determining levels of this type of behavior. So it falls to each of us to gauge that. It really does depend on a case by case basis.

Of course if is judged upon a case by case basis - but nonetheless the criteria we use to judge something are the same in every case.

You are basically asking me to write war and peace on the back of a first class stamp and if I cant them everything I said is rubbish.

No I am asking you to give some form of criteria as opposed to this fuzzy opinion of yours. No one is asking you to go into detail.

So in short when your finished sniping from the back I still await your reasoning for the offence caused to elements of the Muslim religon.

Nice try playing the Islamophobia card to dig yourself out of this one, but the fact remains that you base your entire argument upon some intangible criteria that you are incapable of describing. In short, you're talking out of your arse.

fly_agaric

wes wrote:

I had a lengthy reply all typed out, but that would have taken things far too off topic. I will say this, in a thread talking about freedom of speech, I find it odd for someone to suggest, that some people don't deserve democracy, as they may make the wrong choice to be rather ironic.

I never said Saudis didn't deserve democracy.
You seem to be mistaking me for the US/other Western allies of the [edit] monarchy there (whose pov/possible calculations I was illustrating in my reply) so maybe you can send your unborn post to GWB or something.

That said, speaking of GWB...the electorate of a mature democracy managed to vote him in twice. 2nd time after he had attacked + invaded Iraq for "WMD" which were not there. Many Germans voted for Adolph Hitler. We voted FF into power again! (...bad joke)
I consider Saudis to be quite capable of voting in a govt. of militant religious extremists (and I think that such people would certainly be the most likely rulers after a violent coup).
Voting in such people would be a mistake IMO (or can "the people" not make mistakes???) but it wouldn't mean Saudis were somehow uniquely undeserving of democracy, just capable of making "the wrong choice" as you put it.

Voipjunkie

Zambia232 wrote:

What may slightly irrate one person enrages another

That is the problem of the person getting enraged

My view is do we have the right to criticise religions and even mock them and the answer is yes we do and it applies to Islam as much as it applies to Scientology or the Moonies.
We do not have the right to incite hatred towards any religion or to discriminate against people because of their religous beliefs but we can point out when we disagree with them or if we find something absurd like the virgin birth or 10,000 strangers marrying

Why should we allow one religion to be held above criticism or mockery just because a few headcases threaten to kill people.

Zambia

Voipjunkie wrote:

Why should we allow one religion to be held above criticism or mockery just because a few headcases threaten to kill people.

Why should any religon be subjected to it in the first place? Regardless of threats to kill people. Do you have some need to mock or critise another persons religon ? I am sure you dont.

The Corinthian

Zambia232 wrote:

Why should any religon be subjected to it in the first place? Regardless of threats to kill people. Do you have some need to mock or critise another persons religon ? I am sure you dont.

Are you now suggesting that religion is above criticism? Sacred cows, et al?

Religions, ideologies, governments and individuals have been satirized and mocked since time immemorial. Such mockery does not happen without reason, it happens because they are left open to it by their actions, inactions and inconsistencies.

Perhaps then we should ignore these actions, inactions and inconsistencies for fear of offending someone. Perhaps Galileo should have kept stum on his astronomical views because it would upset Roman Catholics? Or Jonathan Swift and Mark Twain shouldn't have upset contemporary society by describing their hypocrisies? Maybe George Orwell was better off not writing anything for fear he might upset Stalin and the boys in red? As for modern films or TV shows like Borat, South Park or Brass Eye, the less said the better. The list is endless.

So far all you have been able to suggest is that the book in question should not have been written or published because you, in your infinite and learned wisdom do not feel it had merit. You can't even define why something has or has no merit. It's just your opinion.

TBH, I'm not sure if that is the most stupid or the most arrogant thing I've heard in a while, but I'm edging towards thinking it a combination of both.

SeanW

Zambia232 wrote:

Why should any religon be subjected to it in the first place? Regardless of threats to kill people. Do you have some need to mock or critise another persons religon ? I am sure you dont.

Because in the free world we have an inaliable right to criticise and question everything. And its a freedom we need to defend, lest we become like Saudi Arabia. That alone is reason to question and criticise - to make a stand over our absolute right to do so.

Zambia

The Corinthian wrote:

Are you now suggesting that religion is above criticism? Sacred cows, et al?

Religions, ideologies, governments and individuals have been satirized and mocked since time immemorial. Such mockery does not happen without reason, it happens because they are left open to it by their actions, inactions and inconsistencies.

Perhaps then we should ignore these actions, inactions and inconsistencies for fear of offending someone. Perhaps Galileo should have kept stum on his astronomical views because it would upset Roman Catholics? Or Jonathan Swift and Mark Twain shouldn't have upset contemporary society by describing their hypocrisies? Maybe George Orwell was better off not writing anything for fear he might upset Stalin and the boys in red? As for modern films or TV shows like Borat, South Park or Brass Eye, the less said the better. The list is endless.

So far all you have been able to suggest is that the book in question should not have been written or published because you, in your infinite and learned wisdom do not feel it had merit. You can't even define why something has or has no merit. It's just your opinion.

TBH, I'm not sure if that is the most stupid or the most arrogant thing I've heard in a while, but I'm edging towards thinking it a combination of both.

Feel better now ... what was this book questioning?

The Corinthian

Zambia232 wrote:

Feel better now ... what was this book questioning?

How about you stop avoiding the points made to you and respond to them instead? That would make a good start.

Zambia

The Corinthian wrote:

How about you stop avoiding the points made to you and respond to them instead? That would make a good start.

Ok I have explained these time again again to you. Fact that you dont like the answers is more to do with your egocentricity than mine.

You seem like an intelligent bloke you dont go around insulting people because you have the right to do so do you?

Use whatever big words make you happy but you cant tell me what the piont of the book was. (If it was a handy piece of fiction maybe it should have remained that without using the verses.)

I cant tell you to your satisfaction why I dont see a piont to the book. Thats the very nature of not seeing a piont.

We are never going to come to any sort of agreement on this, as my agrument is to simple in principle for you and yours way to complex and piontless for me to entertain further.

The Corinthian

Zambia232 wrote:

Ok I have explained these time again again to you. Fact that you dont like the answers is more to do with your egocentricity than mine.

Except you've not answered. I asked; what defines when satire, criticism or farce is worthy? You've refused to even attempt to answer this - the closest you've come to it is suggesting one example is worthy and another is not, without bothering to explain how you differentiate them.

You seem like an intelligent bloke you dont go around insulting people because you have the right to do so do you?

I have the right, like anyone else, to point out when people, like you, obviously don't know what they're talking about. If you're insulted by this, you have my sympathies.

Use whatever big words make you happy but you cant tell me what the piont of the book was.

The problem is that neither can you, yet you assume that it's unworthy which is an asinine reason to come to that conclusion.

I cant tell you to your satisfaction why I dont see a piont to the book. Thats the very nature of not seeing a piont.

No, that's the nature of ignorance. I don't see the point of a lot of things, but at least I'll admit that's because I don't know anything about them.

We are never going to come to any sort of agreement on this, as my agrument is to simple in principle for you and yours way to complex and piontless for me to entertain further.

Don't confuse simplistic with simple.

Attractive Nun

The long and the short of it is this: Salman Rushdie wrote a book that offended people. He obviously felt the subject matter he dealt with, and the way he dealt with it, to be necessary to make whatever artistic point he wanted to make. That is good enough a reason to say anything. Whether this was stupid or pointless or not is irrelevant (I happen to think that such writing is extremely important in our society - it's always a good idea to say "**** you" to injustice). That the Muslim world got offended by this is OK too - you can be offended by things if you want, there would have been nothing wrong with with them condemning him to hell or performing some equivalent of excomminication on him. But that they issued a fatwah calling for his death is not OK. As un-PC and imperialistic as it sounds, people like this are the enemies of western societal values. Such behaviour should not be tolerated, under any circumstances.

Now, should Rushdie have been knighted for his "services to literature"? Like most here, I haven't read any of his books (and I do think this is a pretty big obstacle to me making any informed judgement on the subject) but I'm told they're not great. But aside from that, Rushdie is a man who has lived in fear of execution for nearly 20 years. There have been riots and people associated with the book have actually been killed. Yet still, he has not backed down from his position and has spoken and written in favour of that most fundamental of prerequisites for artistic and intellectual expression - free speech. That's a service to literature worth applauding.

RedPlanet

The Corinthian wrote:

what defines when satire, criticism or farce is worthy?

So, where do you, (or anybody else) stand on the Bong Hits for Jesus situation?
http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1563423/20070626/index.jhtml
It appears to me that it's OK to mess with Islam and muslim beliefs, but not Christain ones.

Mick86

RedPlanet wrote:

....It appears to me that it's OK to mess with Islam and muslim beliefs, but not Christain ones.

Frederick......lost his case based on the fact that the banner could have been interpreted as promoting illegal drug use. The Supreme Court considered that a clear violation of the school district's anti-drug policy...

You should have read the article perhaps.

InFront

The Corinthian wrote:

It is a cultural right that Europeans have fought centuries of wars, reformations and counter reformations to achieve. We have no interest in taking, what we would consider, a step backwards in this regard.

Who is "we", and why do you see yourself connected to old wars and reformations or dead Europeans?
Every individual starts life on a blank sheet, you seem to believe in some sort of inherited position. My point was that none of us here have much reason to grumble at British Muslims, in their own country, protesting against the Rushdie knighthood (if they even want to)

they must remember that they are ultimately in Europe, not Eurabia

Understand the difference between Muslim and Arab?

Muslims are as much a part of this culture and part of shaping it, but that does not mean turning it on it's head.

No culture is sacred or untouchable, lots of societies change, adapt and are turned on their heads.

fly_agaric

InFront wrote:

why do you see yourself connected to old wars and reformations or dead Europeans?

Poor fellow. He's come down with a bad case of being human and has started identifying with the culture, (and history) of a group of people...I'm sure you are above that and consider yourself a new citizen of planet earth with no nation, no history, no religion etc.

InFront wrote:

My point was that none of us here have much reason to grumble at British Muslims, in their own country, protesting against the Rushdie knighthood (if they even want to)

AFAIR the rent-an-angry-religious-mob protests + nice rhetoric came from Pakistan.

Leaving that aside, "we" seem to grumble about lots on this forum and much of it has really nothing to do with "us" except tangentially and almost all of it is beyond our power to affect.

InFront wrote:

lots of societies change, adapt and are turned on their heads.

Sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse.

InFront

fly_agaric wrote:

Poor fellow. He's come down with a bad case of being human and has started identifying with the culture, (and history) of a group of people...I'm sure you are above that and consider yourself a new citizen of planet earth with no nation, no history, no religion etc.

I don't consider myself to have some ordained past or association before my own birth, no.
The poster I was referring to seemed to associate himself with a particular cultural and political history, I'm merely asking why that is, presumably he's not that old and played no part in it any more than a British Muslim.
Perhaps he admires it from a distance through time, but that has nothing to do with being European

"we" seem to grumble about lots on this forum and much of it has really nothing to do with "us" except tangentially and almost all of it is beyond our power to affect

I'm not suggesting you can effect anything, just that this talk of Muslims needing to stay out of it is baseless.