It seems that the 'Blasphemy Law' could affect Boards

Delirium

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Really?

Can you point out Muhammed in this image which was posted in that thread?

what exactly is your problem with this picture?

The joke, IMHO, is that someone who'd kill another person over a picture is stupid. It's not insulting/stereotyping Muslims unless someone thinks that all Muslims will kill someone for drawing the prophet.

Bannasidhe

Brown Bomber wrote: »

and again: . What I have said negative stereotypes about religious groups can be expressed through blasphemous material. These stereotypes reinforce hatred and prejudices which can lead to innocent people being the victims of hate crimes up to and including murder.


I have no issue at all with the kinds of blasphemy you speak of. What I have a problem with is blasphemous material that stereotypes religious minorities, a consequence of which can be hate crimes.

This painting is to be found in the National Portrait Gallery in London.



Should it be banned?

It is certainly blasphemous to Roman Catholics and although it, in an of itself, does not advocate hatred of Roman Catholics - it was produced at a time and place when to be a Roman Catholic was high treason.

Should we burn it?
Bring charged against the National Gallery for displaying it?
Arrest the curator?
Imprison the Trustees?

What about this image?



or this one?

Nodin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Right, and the stereotype of the violent, bearded and turbaned Muslim was non-existent before 2005?

Like I said these stereotypes REINFORCE prejudices.

But your stereotypes of Jews doesn't?

MrPudding

Bannasidhe wrote: »

By the by - have you tried to run this latest piece of s*it stirring up the flag pole in the Islam forum?

Have not checked, but I doubt it. This line of reasoning is even more tenuous than the last, and that ended up with him, effectively, being told to cop on.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=80267176

MrP

Brown Bomber

Nodin wrote: »

But your stereotypes of Jews doesn't?

What stereotypes?

Gordon

I call it question tetris.

Brown Bomber

koth wrote: »

what exactly is your problem with this picture?

The joke, IMHO, is that someone who'd kill another person over a picture is stupid. It's not insulting/stereotyping Muslims unless someone thinks that all Muslims will kill someone for drawing the prophet.

From a single thread in this forum last year:

Because they're not rational people.

Rationality is something you have to work on. In quite a few muslim countries there's **** all education, especially for women (which would probably reign in the stupidity of the men),

----

Education starts with the muslim school,and their teachings include their religion,which has hatred of anything non muslim and seeks to convert also..

---

When will the Muslim world relax?

When everyone is a muslim.

Then it will be a battle till there is only one type of muslim, radical sunni or radical shiite

---

I for one look forward to a nuclear holocaust; it's the only thing that's going to stop the crazy fundamentalists, east and west.

---

And that is just from the first page.

Delirium

what have those quotes got to do with the question I asked or the topic of this thread?

Brown Bomber

Bannasidhe wrote: »

This painting is to be found in the National Portrait

And once again I have no problem with the type of blasphemy you are describing.

What would be comparable would be a caricature of the Pope wearing a tri-colour balaclava planting a bomb at the houses of parliament. i.e. stereotyping a religious minority as violent, different and disloyal through blasphemy.

Gordon

Brown Bomber wrote: »

... could you please be more specific?

Specifically, the questions that I have directed in your direction that contain question marks.

Maybe I should instead link to an image that may or may not provide information that you requested, while being amiguous over its facts relating to my truth.

Brown Bomber

koth wrote: »

what have those quotes got to do with the question I asked or the topic of this thread?

The caricature portrays Muslims as violent and irrational, right? What the quotes show is that these stereotypes are no strangers in this forum, You even had one poster advocating the ethnic cleansing of all Muslims.

You said that it's only stereotyping if people believe irrationality and violence is a Muslim condition. I was demonstrating to you that this is the case.

Brown Bomber

Gordon wrote: »

Specifically, the questions that I have directed in your direction that contain question marks.

Maybe I should instead link to an image that may or may not provide information that you requested, while being amiguous over its facts relating to my truth.

Or you could rephrase them more simply so I can understand them like I asked.

gaynorvader

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Really?

Can you point out Muhammed in this image which was posted in that thread?

{...}

Muhammed is not in that image?

Gordon

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Or you could rephrase them more simply so I can understand them like I asked.

You answer questions with questions, and provide info tenuously by linking to images that do not provide your truth, I'm surprised that you don't grasp the concept of a question.

My questions have been asked recently, within the last 24 hours, on this thread. I believe I started posting from here onwards. Any questions that I have posed will contain question marks. Any statements and assumptions will not contain question marks.

Brown Bomber

gaynorvader wrote: »

Muhammed is not in that image?

No. It's a Muslim killing a white cartoonist.

MrPudding

Brown Bomber wrote: »

No. It's a Muslim killing a white cartoonist.

Why is he killing the white cartoonist, and what is the relevance of the cartoonists colour?

MrP

Delirium

Brown Bomber wrote: »

The caricature portrays Muslims as violent and irrational, right?

Wrong. It portrays Muslims that behead cartoonists as stupid and violent.

What the quotes show is that these stereotypes are no strangers in this forum, You even had one poster advocating the ethnic cleansing of all Muslims.

no they didn't. they said;

for one look forward to a nuclear holocaust; it's the only thing that's going to stop the crazy fundamentalists, east and west.

Crazy fundamentalists, east and west. This does not read to me as "all Muslims". It is addressed to all fundamentalists. Your interpretation is a very skewed reading of that post.

You said that it's only stereotyping if people believe irrationality and violence is a Muslim condition. I was demonstrating to you that this is the case.

No you didn't.

Plus none of those quotes were by the artist of the cartoon.

Brown Bomber

Gordon wrote: »

You answer questions with questions, and provide info tenuously by linking to images that do not provide your truth, I'm surprised that you don't grasp the concept of a question.

My questions have been asked recently, within the last 24 hours, on this thread. I believe I started posting from here onwards. Any questions that I have posed will contain question marks. Any statements and assumptions will not contain question marks.

OK, I'll try.

Gordon wrote: »

That image doesn't mention Islam or Muslims, is there a reason why you think it's targeting a particular Islamic religion or have I missed something

Yes. Sikhs are frequently victims of hate crimes due to their appearance which resembles the Muslim stereotype. <

---

I said this already.

Gordon wrote: »

Is it simply because of the word 'bomb'?

The word was "bombs" it replaced the word "love" on the advertisedment to become "make bombs" as in the "Muslim" man stereotype in the advertisement "makes bombs" because he is Muslim and Muslims are terrorists <

---

I said this already.

Also, the male Sikh in the advert that was defaced isn't dead, I've no idea where you pulled that one from. Or are you talking about the Iranian guy that was murdered for being a suspected paedophile?

No. <

---

I said this already too.

And that is all the questions I can find. Since I have already provided answers I am not sure what more you want.

Nodin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

What stereotypes?

Dear o dear o dear......

"In a nutshell the Catholic Church and Christ at least since the French Revolution been an enemy of Masonry which is based on Jewish Mysticism (Kaballah), later Bolshevism which was top heavy with Jews, and today's militant atheists, also over represented by Jews."
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=71623326


" I assume you are oblivious to the fact that the Russian/Red Mafia consists of largely Ashkenazi Jews amongst it's leadership?

If so, you should get your hands Red Mafia by Jewish investigative journalist Robert I. Friedman.

I assume you do know that it is the East European crime gangs that dominate these activities of the most repulsive of porn - snuff porn, child porn etc, worldwide MDMA distribution. For example:"



http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=71849984

Brown Bomber

Nodin wrote: »

Dear o dear o dear......

"In a nutshell the Catholic Church and Christ at least since the French Revolution been an enemy of Masonry which is based on Jewish Mysticism (Kaballah), later Bolshevism which was top heavy with Jews, and today's militant atheists, also over represented by Jews."
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=71623326


" I assume you are oblivious to the fact that the Russian/Red Mafia consists of largely Ashkenazi Jews amongst it's leadership?

If so, you should get your hands Red Mafia by Jewish investigative journalist Robert I. Friedman.

I assume you do know that it is the East European crime gangs that dominate these activities of the most repulsive of porn - snuff porn, child porn etc, worldwide MDMA distribution. For example:"



http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=71849984

Again, what stereotypes?

Nodin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Again, what stereotypes?

Ahh look...being obtuse. How sweet.

Brown Bomber

MrPudding wrote: »

Why is he killing the white cartoonist,

Because he is Muslim, which makes him violent and irrational.

MrPudding wrote: »

and what is the relevance of the cartoonists colour?

MrP

He is "us" and the Muslim is "them". "We" are secular, liberal, democratic etc and "they" are violent, dogmatic and irrational.

Edit: The above is the reason that so many atheists are pro war against Muslims. They consider the "West" as morally and culturally superior and Muslims need to be rationalised. They are cultural imperailists.

Nodin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Because he is Muslim, which makes him violent and irrational.

.

That's your rather self serving reading of it.

You don't seem to have a problem with stating certain stereotypes about others though, in terms which are clear and unambiguous. 'Jews, Jews, at the forefront of everything Jews' seems to be A-ok.

MrPudding

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Because he is Muslim, which makes him violent and irrational.

OK, is it not the fact that he is violent and irrational, and beheading someone for a ridiculos reason that makes him violent and irrational...? He just also happens to be muslim.

Also, have there been any occurances of a muslim beheading someone for something? If so, how would one go about satirising that act?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

He is "us" and the Muslim is "them". "We" are secular, liberal, democratic etc and "they" are violent, dogmatic and irrational.

Hmmm, I know quite a few non-white secular, liberal, democratic etc people. WOuld the cartton be less offensive to you (I presume it is offensive to you) if the cartoonist was black, or perhaps middle eastern?


MrP

Brown Bomber

Nodin wrote: »

That's your rather self serving reading of it.

You don't seem to have a problem with stating certain stereotypes about others though, in terms which are clear and unambiguous. 'Jews, Jews, at the forefront of everything Jews' seems to be A-ok.

I am afraid you are mistaken. I have been critical of Jews, Atheists Christians and Muslims.

Brown Bomber

MrPudding wrote: »

OK, is it not the fact that he is violent and irrational, and beheading someone for a ridiculos reason that makes him violent and irrational...? He just also happens to be muslim.

Also, have there been any occurances of a muslim beheading someone for something? If so, how would one go about satirising that act?

Hmmm, I know quite a few non-white secular, liberal, democratic etc people. WOuld the cartton be less offensive to you (I presume it is offensive to you) if the cartoonist was black, or perhaps middle eastern?


MrP

A- The caricature isn't offensive to me.
B- The cartoonist isn't black or Middle-Eastern.

How about an honest and straight answer?

Do you consider yourself to be liberal, democratic and secular?
Do you consider Muslims on the whole to be dogmatic, irrational and more prone to violence than you due to their religion?

Gordon

Brown Bomber wrote: »

OK, I'll try.

Well it's a start.

Yes. Sikhs are frequently victims of hate crimes due to their appearance which resembles the Muslim stereotype. <

---

I said this already.

You originally posited this:

Brown Bomber wrote: »

this Gap advertisement was recently vandalised with anti-Muslim graffiti

and I asked you this:

Gordon wrote: »

That image doesn't mention Islam or Muslims, is there a reason why you think it's targeting a particular Islamic religion or have I missed something?

Your response regarding Sikhs being regarded as Muslims doesn't answer the question. You're just trying to force an opinion onto the reader, imo. My question was asking you what the 'anti-muslim' graffiti was, which you start to try and answer below:

The word was "bombs" it replaced the word "love" on the advertisedment to become "make bombs" as in the "Muslim" man stereotype in the advertisement "makes bombs" because he is Muslim and Muslims are terrorists <

---

I said this already.

This is your slant, you are suggesting that all Muslims are terrorists, the poster does not suggest this. I can see where someone that is impartial would view through this lens, but looking at the precise facts to hand, this is not the case. The very fact that you and others make such leaps of logic is not constructive, in fact, can help to disseminate similar unproven facts, and may spread truths that are not truths at all. When will people see the facts as given and take them on board as simply that, instead of forcing a hypothesis as fact?

For all we know, the stupid idiotic kid that made that tag could have thought Sikhs were murderous, or that that one guy was a bomber, or the female made crap bombs. (you missed out the fact that the G was removed from Gap, and replaced with 'cr' to make "Make crap bombs!") Or more importantly, maybe that stupid idiot thought that only stupid, radical, murderous, bigoted, awful human beings, that are also Muslims that the kid mixed up Sikhism with, made crap bombs.

This intention to lump all people (in that case, possibly radical murderers that are Muslim as opposed to Jews, or Christians) into one broad brush is exactly what people shouldn't be doing, and it's unfortunate that you do this too, simply by trying to show everyone here that the defaced poster shows that there is hatred of all Muslims. Which is laughable, but I'm surprised that you take this stance. Your very username promotes this stance as people that either don't believe that your username is solely due to a boxer from 70 years ago because you haven't actually clarified, or people that may believe that if you told them, but don't know any backstory, will consider your username to be one that perpetuates a negative correlation with a number of people.

No. <

---

I said this already too.

Yeah, that was mad, that one dude's picture from 12 years ago wasn't showing on any of my browsers for some reason.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

No. It's a Muslim killing a white cartoonist.

No. It's a radical murderous person (that looks a little like a ninja) it's most likely that it's a radical Muslim that would kill people for drawing a picture of the prophet Mohammed, it's not every Muslim person. It's not simply 'a muslim', just like it's not simply 'a white cartoonist'. Both people are white in that image, and as the cartoon is in black and white, both people could be black, brown, pink or orange. Both people could be Muslim, both people could be Christian. Please open thine eyes and don't spread hypothesis as fact.

Bannasidhe

Brown Bomber wrote: »

And once again I have no problem with the type of blasphemy you are describing.

What would be comparable would be a caricature of the Pope wearing a tri-colour balaclava planting a bomb at the houses of parliament. i.e. stereotyping a religious minority as violent, different and disloyal through blasphemy.

Look at the images again.

See anyone wearing a distinctive three tiered hat?

That would be the Pope.

Essentially you have no problems with the images I showed because:

A) You cannot read them and are unaware of the deeply insulting nature of them.

or

You can read them but as they are Anti-Roman Catholic you don't care.

or

C) You are engaging in s*it stirring. Again.

Sarky

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Because he is Muslim, which makes him violent and irrational.

That's a pretty impressive leap of logic there. Olympics-grade, even. Would you like to try again?

MrPudding

Brown Bomber wrote: »

A- The caricature isn't offensive to me.
B- The cartoonist isn't black or Middle-Eastern.

How about an honest and straight answer?

Do you consider yourself to be liberal, democratic and secular?
Do you consider Muslims on the whole to be dogmatic, irrational and more prone to violence than you due to their religion?[/QUOTE]

I consider myself to be fairly liberal, democratic and secular.

No. I know a reasonably large number of muslims and on the whole don't find them to be any more dogmatic, irrational and more prone to violence than any other people I know of other religions. I find what they believe to be silly, but then I find what christians believe to be silly too.

I do consider that there are some people that are dogmatic, irrational and more prone to violence and i think there may very well be a connection between this and the particular brand of religion they have been introduced to. But I think I am perfectly entitled to believe that, and I can believe that whilst, at the same time, believing that the vast majority of people following, at least in name, the same religion are not any more dogmatic, irrational and more prone to violence than any other people I know of other religions, and are certainly not raving homicidal maniacs.

MrP

Brown Bomber

MrPudding wrote: »

How about an honest and straight answer?

Do you consider yourself to be liberal, democratic and secular?
Do you consider Muslims on the whole to be dogmatic, irrational and more prone to violence than you due to their religion?

MrPudding wrote: »

I consider myself to be fairly liberal, democratic and secular.

No. I know a reasonably large number of muslims and on the whole don't find them to be any more dogmatic, irrational and more prone to violence than any other people I know of other religions. I find what they believe to be silly, but then I find what christians believe to be silly too.

I do consider that there are some people that are dogmatic, irrational and more prone to violence and i think there may very well be a connection between this and the particular brand of religion they have been introduced to. But I think I am perfectly entitled to believe that, and I can believe that whilst, at the same time, believing that the vast majority of people following, at least in name, the same religion are not any more dogmatic, irrational and more prone to violence than any other people I know of other religions, and are certainly not raving homicidal maniacs.

MrP[/QUOTE]

Ok, but I didn't ask you to limit your views to people you know nor did I ask you your opinions on Muslims vs other religions I asked you if in your view Muslims on the whole were more dogmatic, prone to violence and irrational than you.

Brown Bomber

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Look at the images again.

See anyone wearing a distinctive three tiered hat?

That would be the Pope.

Essentially you have no problems with the images I showed because:

A) You cannot read them and are unaware of the deeply insulting nature of them.

or

You can read them but as they are Anti-Roman Catholic you don't care.

or

C) You are engaging in s*it stirring. Again.

I personally don't mind so much if they are offensive to Catholics. How many different ways do you want me to say it? What I take issue with is blasphemy which demonises a group as a whole.

Turtwig

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I personally don't mind so much if they are offensive to Catholics. How many different ways do you want me to say it? What I take issue with is blasphemy which demonises a group as a whole.

So if someone said Yahweh was a misogynistic asshole?

MrPudding

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Ok, but I didn't ask you to limit your views to people you know nor did I ask you your opinions on Muslims vs other religions I asked you if in your view Muslims on the whole were more dogmatic, prone to violence and irrational than you.

I answered your question. What is your problem. Do you take issue with the fact that is use my experience in life to help me form my views? Let me try, I have reread my post and perhaps my point was not as clear as I had hoped.

No. I know a reasonably large number of muslims and on the whole don't find them to be any more dogmatic, irrational and more prone to violence than any other people I know of other religions. As a result, I have no reason to suspect that muslims, on the whole (which would include those I don't actually know) are anymore dogmatic, irrational and more prone to violence than any other people I know of other religions, or people that follow other religions in general. As they are religious they must to a certain extent be dogmatic and, in my opinion, irrational, therefore, in common with every other religous person on the planet EVER, I would consider them to be more dogmatic and irrational than me, as I am not religious. I find what they believe to be silly, but then I find what christians believe to be silly too.

Is that better?

MrP

Bannasidhe

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I personally don't mind so much if they are offensive to Catholics. How many different ways do you want me to say it? What I take issue with is blasphemy which demonises a group as a whole.

You mean a group like Catholics...oh you don't...apparently they are fair game.

Nodin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I am afraid you are mistaken. I have been critical of Jews, Atheists Christians and Muslims.

...you repeat anti-Semitic stereotypes. Having had a go at others doesn't let you off the hook.

28064212

Brown Bomber wrote: »

What I take issue with is blasphemy which demonises a group as a whole.

Can you give an example of such a statement? You haven't yet. You've given examples of blasphemy, and you've given examples of groups being demonised, but you haven't given one which is both.

NB:

• The cartoonist/Muslim-ninja drawing is not blasphemous. It contains no blasphemous material whatsoever
• The bomb/turban drawing is blasphemous, but demonises exactly one person, not a group

Brown Bomber

Bannasidhe wrote: »

You mean a group like Catholics...oh you don't...apparently they are fair game.

No, not at all. Honestly, how can you not understand this.

I will try and rephrase it for what must be the 5th time now...

I have no problem with blasphemy of itself. I would prefer if people didn't go out of their way to offend others for no reason other than to offend but I believe it is their right to do so, What I have a problem with is when people abuse this liberty. When the publication of blasphemous material is wrapped up in racial or religious stereotypes which demonises groups as a whole.

Cartoons/Satire/art are all effective rhetorical means of reinforcing and spreading prejudices against the "other". It is this spreading of hatred that I have a problem with primarily because it can lead to hate crimes against the stereotyped inluding murder motivated by this anti-religious hatred.

Please try to understand this time.

Brown Bomber

28064212 wrote: »

Can you give an example of such a statement? You haven't yet. You've given examples of blasphemy, and you've given examples of groups being demonised, but you haven't given one which is both.

NB:

• The cartoonist/Muslim-ninja drawing is not blasphemous. It contains no blasphemous material whatsoever
• The bomb/turban drawing is blasphemous, but demonises exactly one person, not a group

"The bomb/turban drawing is blasphemous, but demonises exactly one person, not a group"

On the contrary this image does indeed demonise a whole group. I find it hard to believe you are ignorant of the Muslim as terrorist stereotype; maybe you just don't understand how visual metaphors work?

Brown Bomber

Gordon wrote: »

Well it's a start.


You originally posited this:

and I asked you this:

Your response regarding Sikhs being regarded as Muslims doesn't answer the question. You're just trying to force an opinion onto the reader, imo. My question was asking you what the 'anti-muslim' graffiti was, which you start to try and answer below:


This is your slant, you are suggesting that all Muslims are terrorists, the poster does not suggest this. I can see where someone that is impartial would view through this lens, but looking at the precise facts to hand, this is not the case. The very fact that you and others make such leaps of logic is not constructive, in fact, can help to disseminate similar unproven facts, and may spread truths that are not truths at all. When will people see the facts as given and take them on board as simply that, instead of forcing a hypothesis as fact?

For all we know, the stupid idiotic kid that made that tag could have thought Sikhs were murderous, or that that one guy was a bomber, or the female made crap bombs. (you missed out the fact that the G was removed from Gap, and replaced with 'cr' to make "Make crap bombs!") Or more importantly, maybe that stupid idiot thought that only stupid, radical, murderous, bigoted, awful human beings, that are also Muslims that the kid mixed up Sikhism with, made crap bombs.

This intention to lump all people (in that case, possibly radical murderers that are Muslim as opposed to Jews, or Christians) into one broad brush is exactly what people shouldn't be doing, and it's unfortunate that you do this too, simply by trying to show everyone here that the defaced poster shows that there is hatred of all Muslims. Which is laughable, but I'm surprised that you take this stance. Your very username promotes this stance as people that either don't believe that your username is solely due to a boxer from 70 years ago because you haven't actually clarified, or people that may believe that if you told them, but don't know any backstory, will consider your username to be one that perpetuates a negative correlation with a number of people.

Yeah, that was mad, that one dude's picture from 12 years ago wasn't showing on any of my browsers for some reason.


No. It's a radical murderous person (that looks a little like a ninja) it's most likely that it's a radical Muslim that would kill people for drawing a picture of the prophet Mohammed, it's not every Muslim person. It's not simply 'a muslim', just like it's not simply 'a white cartoonist'. Both people are white in that image, and as the cartoon is in black and white, both people could be black, brown, pink or orange. Both people could be Muslim, both people could be Christian. Please open thine eyes and don't spread hypothesis as fact.

I reject your argument. The only leap I have made is a logical one.

Innocent Sikhs are frequently targeted for being Muslim. Sikhs aren't frequently targeted for being Sikhs. Innocent Muslims are frequently targeted for being terrorist. Sikhs aren't frequently targeted for being terrorists.

When a Sikh is targeted for being a terrorist it should be apparent that in all probabilty it was an anti-Muslim hate crime of mistaken identity.

Brown Bomber

MrPudding wrote: »

Is that better?

MrP

Yes. Thank you, You have clarified that you consider yourself more rational than a typical Muslim and are therefore superior in this regard.

MrPudding

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Yes. Thank you, You have clarified that you consider yourself more rational than a typical Muslim and are therefore superior in this regard.

I consider myself more rational than a typical religious person, whether that person is muslim, hindu, christian, mormon, scientologist or any other religion that you care to mention. I don't beleive, as I took great pains to explain, that muslims are any different to any other religion. I get the impression that you are trying to push an idea that I somehow have something against muslims in particular.

By the way, using your definition of superior, I also consider myself to be superior to anti-vaxxers, flat earthers, homeopathy beleivers, people that belive in astrologists and quite a few conspiracy theorists. Does that mean I is a racialist?

MrP

Gordon

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I reject your argument. The only leap I have made is a logical one.

Innocent Sikhs are frequently targeted for being Muslim. Sikhs aren't frequently targeted for being Sikhs. Innocent Muslims are frequently targeted for being terrorist. Sikhs aren't frequently targeted for being terrorists.

When a Sikh is targeted for being a terrorist it should be apparent that in all probabilty it was an anti-Muslim hate crime of mistaken identity.

Well it's a shame that you stay unenlightened to the fact that many can see you as being one that helps to spread these misconceptions. Therefore, you are helping to dissipate the seeds of prejudice simply by reinforcing these factless logic leaps and repeating them, hence chipping away the argument that you are trying to build. But as you've simply, glibly, dismissed my argument in one quick sentence with no supporting counterargument and counterpoints, simply your opinion, I imagine you can't refute my points, or maybe you didn't read my post. Which is making me understand your side a bit more, so I'll take that on board in future, when dealing with you.

28064212

Brown Bomber wrote: »

"The bomb/turban drawing is blasphemous, but demonises exactly one person, not a group"

On the contrary this image does indeed demonise a whole group. I find it hard to believe you are ignorant of the Muslim as terrorist stereotype; maybe you just don't understand how visual metaphors work?

I'm well aware of the stereotype. That picture does not stereotype all Muslims, or Muslims as a group, it makes a claim about exactly one person.

Your argument is the same as saying a drawing of George Bush doing something stupid is stereotyping all white people as stupid.

Brown Bomber

MrPudding wrote: »

I consider myself more rational than a typical religious person, whether that person is muslim, hindu, christian, mormon, scientologist or any other religion that you care to mention. I don't beleive, as I took great pains to explain, that muslims are any different to any other religion. I get the impression that you are trying to push an idea that I somehow have something against muslims in particular.

By the way, using your definition of superior, I also consider myself to be superior to anti-vaxxers, flat earthers, homeopathy beleivers, people that belive in astrologists and quite a few conspiracy theorists. Does that mean I is a racialist?

MrP

How could anyone think that you have prejudices against Muslims?

Originally Posted by MrPudding
Seems like a good time to post one of my favourite t-shirts:

http://www.cafepress.co.uk/jmoshop.110593258

I feel privileged that, as a man, I am capable of not sexually assaulting or raping every woman I meet, irrespective of what she is wearing. What is it about some muslim men that they apparently can't?

MrP

So what is it about some Muslim men that can't stop raping every woman they meet?

Is it this same inherent sexual deviancy that makes a neighbourhood suspect an innocent Muslim man of sexual deviancy and beat burn him death outside his home?

Brown Bomber

28064212 wrote: »

I'm well aware of the stereotype. That picture does not stereotype all Muslims, or Muslims as a group, it makes a claim about exactly one person.

Your argument is the same as saying a drawing of George Bush doing something stupid is stereotyping all white people as stupid.

Apparently you do not understand visual metaphors then. Let me explain by example.

In the following image "Uncle Sam" is not someone's uncle by the name of Sam. He is the personification of the US government/state.



Using your logic the poster makes no sense. The "individual" (Sam) wants people to join the US army.

Delirium

Muhammed is a fictional personification to represent Muslims?

Brown Bomber

Gordon wrote: »

Well it's a shame that you stay unenlightened to the fact that many can see you as being one that helps to spread these misconceptions. Therefore, you are helping to dissipate the seeds of prejudice simply by reinforcing these factless logic leaps and repeating them, hence chipping away the argument that you are trying to build. But as you've simply, glibly, dismissed my argument in one quick sentence with no supporting counterargument and counterpoints, simply your opinion, I imagine you can't refute my points, or maybe you didn't read my post. Which is making me understand your side a bit more, so I'll take that on board in future, when dealing with you.

You are free to do as you please but I don't see your angle on this. I only chose the defaced advertisement as it was in the news this week. Precedents of which there are many strongly suggest this case was an anti-Muslim hate crime based on racism. Why you persist in your denial of this I am not quite sure.

We can take another recent case (precedent) if you prefer? Same state same situation. An innocent Sikh (so same stereotypes: beard, turban and brown skin) professor was attacked and hospitalised after a savage beating by a gang who shouted "terrorist" and "Osama" at him. Do you also deny this as an anti-Muslim hate-crime of mistaken identity?

Brown Bomber

koth wrote: »

Muhammed is a fictional personification to represent Muslims?

Fictional, mythological or real it doesn't make any difference. The "individual" can be a symbol. Muhammed can obviously be a symbol of Muslims.

Nodin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Fictional, mythological or real it doesn't make any difference. The "individual" can be a symbol. Muhammed can obviously be a symbol of Muslims.

....but Jews doesn't mean Jews.