It seems that the 'Blasphemy Law' could affect Boards

smacl

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Right and the context is all important. You are talking about ancient, nebulous myths and a sincere recreation of them. I am talking about latent racism against someone who considers the target as "cretins" and hopes to offend...

BB, you could do worse than look at some Islamic Persian art, much of which is both erotic and explicit. In terms of being dehumanizing, i've seen pictures from the Sefavid (sp?) period where non Persians were depicted as animals. That doesn't reflect in any way on modern Persians, any more than the barbaric acts of the Spanish inquisition reflect on today's Spaniards. While a conservative Christian or Muslim might consider these pictures offensive, that is where the contextual error lies. Selecting a piece of ancient art from any culture or period as a piece of blasphemy that causes offence, and hence suggesting it should be censored, hidden or destroyed, is about as enlightened as book burning.

robindch

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Maybe not to you, it will become apparent if you choose to open your eyes. To diagnosis why the painfully obvious isn't clear to you [...]

BB, again, chill please. There's no need for that kind of condescending tone in a polite discussion and you'll be carded if you continue in this fashion.

Nodin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Maybe not to you, it will become apparent if you choose to open your eyes.


To diagnosis why the painfully obvious isn't clear to you I am going to ask you a series of questions:

1. Do you know what context is?
2. Do you know what myths are?
3. Do you know the difference between a sexually graphic and non-graphic image?
4. Are you aware that racist caricatures and stereotypes have been used to demonise and stereotype people who fall under the "other" or enemy bracket for centuries?
5. Are you aware that a caricature can represent an entire group?
6. Are you aware that this negative stereotyping can and has lead to violence against the stereotyped up to and including death?

When you can answer yes to all of the above then we can have an informed discussion.

O look, loaded questions. How lovely.

The truth of the matter is you couldn't give a rats ass about muslims. You just think this is the forums Achilles heel and will drag it up at every occasion and do the appropriate dance in the hope of getting a result.

Why isn't the depiction of a Greek god as an animal raping a woman not degrading to greeks?

equivariant

.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Maybe not to you, it will become apparent if you choose to open your eyes. See point about condescending remarks below


To diagnosis why the painfully obvious isn't clear to you I am going to ask you a series of questions:

1. Do you know what context is? yes
2. Do you know what myths are? yes
3. Do you know the difference between a sexually graphic and non-graphic image? no and neither do you (it is a very subjective issue)
4. Are you aware that racist caricatures and stereotypes have been used to demonise and stereotype people who fall under the "other" or enemy bracket for centuries? yes, that is no excuse for muslin outrage at a picture
5. Are you aware that a caricature can represent an entire group? yes
6. Are you aware that this negative stereotyping can and has lead to violence against the stereotyped up to and including death? yes. I haven't heard of anyone deciding to kill a bunch of muslims recently because they saw a funny picture of the big M. On the other hand ...

When you can answer yes to all of the above then we can have an informed discussion. Its amazing how easy some people (especially religious apologists in my experience) find condescension. Since when do you get to decide when or when not I can have an informed discussion?

Brian Shanahan

equivariant wrote: »

.

Since when you stopped agreeing with Brown Bomber.

Brown Bomber

Nodin wrote: »

Why isn't the depiction of a Greek god as an animal raping a woman not degrading to greeks?

For the same reason that Walt Disney's human-hybrid Mickey Mouse isn't to Americans while the Nazi's mischevious Jew-Rodent hybrid depictions is to Jews.

Can you honestly not see the difference???

Delirium

Brown Bomber wrote: »

For the same reason that Walt Disney's human-hybrid Mickey Mouse isn't to Americans while the Nazi's mischevious Jew-Rodent hybrid depictions is to Jews.

Can you honestly not see the difference???

That means the donkey picture isn't offensive to Muslims as the picture wasn't created as anti-Muslim propaganda.

robindch

Leaving aside the issue of whether or not some item is offensive, the act of choosing to be offended by something hands a potent political weapon to the person who's doing the "offending" -- on hearing one side shout "boo!", the other side predictably starts roaring and banging the table.

It's a trolls' paradise.

Brown Bomber

koth wrote: »

That means the donkey picture isn't offensive to Muslims as the picture wasn't created as anti-Muslim propaganda.

Right, but that is in it's original context. We aren't discussing the the publishing of the image in it's original context.

The Nazis didn't create the swastika symbol yet it is understandably offensive to Holocaust survivors.

srsly78

Context means everything.

Consider the law in Germany regarding certain symbols (ok it's not blasphemy but it's similar argument):
Wearing a GAA top at a right-wing rally = Illegal because of the Celtic cross (a banned symbol)
Wearing a GAA top while not at a right-wing rally = Alle ist in ordnung.

Delirium

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Right, but that is in it's original context. We aren't discussing the the publishing of the image in it's original context.

the context being that, in a general sense, it's an entire thread that is conceivably offensive to some Muslims. A stick man/pig/wearing a dress on that thread is as much a slight as the donkey image.

robindch

I must say, I'm quite offended by the sight of women being forced/stockholm-syndrom'd into wearing the burka. Who can I complain to?

smacl

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Right, but that is in it's original context. We aren't discussing the the publishing of the image in it's original context.

The Nazis didn't create the swastika symbol yet it is understandably offensive to Holocaust survivors.

So what you're saying is there's nothing wrong with the picture per se, but it is offensive within certain contexts, such that it should be censored in those contexts. Perhaps you could explain which context, and why this picture is offensive in this context, more so than other pictures of Mohammed in the same context, or than this picture in other contexts?

The context in question is religious humor, and I strongly suspect you find most if not all of it offensive. That being the case, you might be better off avoiding sites that are labelled as religious humor. Similarly, if you find Islamic erotic art offensive, you should probably avoid that too. Some of us however don't take offence quite so easily, and while old Arabic bestiality pictures wouldn't have me splitting my sides laughing, the fact that there was more to the ancient world than the ultra conservative stories coming from today's religious zealots does bring a wry smile to my face.

Bannasidhe

Giraldus Cambrensis claimed in Topographia Hiberniae that as part of their inauguration rite a certain clan in Donegal expected their new Chieftain to have it off with a horse.*

I am outraged by this racist insult to all Irish people.









*Turns out this tale is not entirely made up.

kitnan

My problem is with the act of being offended. I think Stephen Fry put it well:

“It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more... than a whine. 'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.' Well, so ****ing what."

smacl

Bannasidhe wrote: »

*Turns out this tale is not entirely made up.

Unlike Catherine the great, who apparently died on the bog of all things, though plenty of pictures of an alternate death abound.

Bannasidhe

smacl wrote: »

Unlike Catherine the great, who apparently died on the bog of all things, though plenty of pictures of an alternate death abound.

You haven't lived until you have seen a highly respected retired historian acting out the possible positions which Catherine would have had to assume should the alternate death be true.

Nodin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

For the same reason that Walt Disney's human-hybrid Mickey Mouse isn't to Americans while the Nazi's mischevious Jew-Rodent hybrid depictions is to Jews.

Can you honestly not see the difference???

.....you seem to be once again grasping at inappropriate analogies.

The truth is you couldn't give a flying shite about muslims or their sensitivities.

A cartoon of muhammed is a cartoon of muhammed.

Bannasidhe

Nodin wrote: »

.....you seem to be once again grasping at inappropriate analogies.

The truth is you couldn't give a flying shite about muslims or their sensitivities.

A cartoon of muhammed is a cartoon of muhammed.

My son did a drawing of Muhammed* standing in dog poo - should I go apologise to every Muslim in case he caused offense?




*Muhammad being a fellow playgroup attendee with sonofmine - they were both aged 3 and 'Hammy' (yes - they called him Hammy) had trod in some dog poo which to 3 years olds is the height of comedy.

gaynorvader

Bannasidhe wrote: »

My son did a drawing of Muhammed* standing in dog poo - should I go apologise to every Muslim in case he caused offense?




*Muhammad being a fellow playgroup attendee with sonofmine - they were both aged 3 and 'Hammy' (yes - they called him Hammy) had trod in some dog poo which to 3 years olds is the height of comedy.

It is the height of comedy. Right up there with falling over and farting!

Brian Shanahan

smacl wrote: »

Unlike Catherine the great, who apparently died on the bog of all things, though plenty of pictures of an alternate death abound.

Was she holding a triple-decker ham and cheese hamburger in one hand and a dog eared fag in the other?

recedite

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Giraldus Cambrensis claimed in Topographia Hiberniae that as part of their inauguration rite a certain clan in Donegal expected their new Chieftain to have it off with a horse.

Would that be the O'Donnells?"
Thinking of Daniel now, singing "I have a harse outside"

Bannasidhe

recedite wrote: »

Would that be the O'Donnells?"
Thinking of Daniel now, singing "I have a harse outside"

There is in a northern and remote part of Ulster, among the Kenelcunil, a certain tribe which is wont to install a king over itself by an excessively savage and abominable ritual. In the presence of all the people of this land in one place, a white mare is brought into their midst. Thereupon he who is to be elevated, not to a prince but to a beast, not to a king but to an outlaw, steps forward in beastly fashion and exhibits his bestiality. Right thereafter the mare is killed and boiled piecemeal in water, and in the same water a bath is prepared for him. He gets into the bath and eats of the flesh that is brought to him, with his people standing around and sharing it with him. He also imbibes the broth in which he is bathed, not from any vessel, nor with his hand, but only with his mouth. When this is done right according to such unrighteous ritual, his rule and sovereignty are consecrated

Kenelcunil = Tír Chonaill...the O'Donnells were, if you pardon the expression, the biggest swinging mickies in those parts...that's all I'm saying....

PopePalpatine

Whoa, that's some hardcore Dothraki stuff there. :eek:

Canis Lupus

Bannasidhe wrote: »

My son did a drawing of Muhammed* standing in dog poo - should I go apologise to every Muslim in case he caused offense?




*Muhammad being a fellow playgroup attendee with sonofmine - they were both aged 3 and 'Hammy' (yes - they called him Hammy) had trod in some dog poo which to 3 years olds is the height of comedy.

I think you'll find that never stops being funny.

Nodin

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Whoa, that's some hardcore Dothraki stuff there. :eek:

I read about that years n years n years ago in a French book (translated to the English) on the origins of the grail legend. By shagging the horse, the king/chief marrys the land. You get some of the same mythos running through John Boormans "Excalibur" - the kind and the land are one, and when one fails so does the other.

Wish to jaysus I could remember the name of the book...

roosh

just saw this thread and haven't got the time to read through it, but what exactly is happening? I just see people going on about blasphemy laws and boards possibly being affected

Brown Bomber

Nodin wrote: »

A cartoon of muhammed is a cartoon of muhammed.

Therefore a cartoon of Obama is a cartoon of Obama. Let's put your logic to the test so...

Caricature A = Caricature B

Caricature A: Obama gets a caricature done on the bank of the Seine which exaggerates his facial and body features,

Caricature B: KKK propaganda. Depicts Obama in prison overalls, with a bucket of fried chicken and a crackpipe and harrassing a white woman. His lips, nose and afro and greatly disproportionate and his forehead is protruding.

It should be clear to you that A is not the same as B.

Turtwig

Obama's real.

gaynorvader

Jernal wrote: »

Obama's real.

So was Muhammed (probably). Obama's still alive might be a better argument.

Turtwig

gaynorvader wrote: »

So was Muhammed (probably). Obama's still alive might be a better argument.

That's true. Meh, not real, dead, whatever. He's not currently alive to get offended.

srsly78

Jernal wrote: »

Obama's real.

And a muslim!

Delirium

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Therefore a cartoon of Obama is a cartoon of Obama. Let's put your logic to the test so...

Caricature A = Caricature B

Caricature A: Obama gets a caricature done on the bank of the Seine which exaggerates his facial and body features,

Caricature B: KKK propaganda. Depicts Obama in prison overalls, with a bucket of fried chicken and a crackpipe and harrassing a white woman. His lips, nose and afro and greatly disproportionate and his forehead is protruding.

It should be clear to you that A is not the same as B.

But the KKK picture is offensive because it plays into pre-existing racist imagery about black people.

How frequently have/are Muslims referred to as having sex with donkeys? Is it a slur reserved for Muslims?

Nodin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Therefore a cartoon of Obama is a cartoon of Obama. Let's put your logic to the test so...

Caricature A = Caricature B

Caricature A: Obama gets a caricature done on the bank of the Seine which exaggerates his facial and body features,

Caricature B: KKK propaganda. Depicts Obama in prison overalls, with a bucket of fried chicken and a crackpipe and harrassing a white woman. His lips, nose and afro and greatly disproportionate and his forehead is protruding.

It should be clear to you that A is not the same as B.

.....who said anything about a racist portrayal? O yes - you. The 'don't-give-a-crap-about-muslims-but-will-get-this-forum-if-it-kills-him' guy.

recedite

roosh wrote: »

just saw this thread and haven't got the time to read through it, but what exactly is happening? I just see people going on about blasphemy laws and boards possibly being affected

I wish I had time to reply to you.

gaynorvader

recedite wrote: »

I wish I had time to reply to you.

'twould seem thine wish hath been granted, young sir.

robindch

recedite wrote: »

I wish I had time to reply to you.

I have thought up of a truly remarkable reply which this editbox is too small to contain.

Brian Shanahan

robindch wrote: »

I have thought up of a truly remarkable reply which this editbox is too small to contain.

Andrew Wiles will surely solve that problem for you.

Banbh

Yeah, no. I just saw this like great thread on the Constitution and would like someone to just tell me what's that about. Can't read it now, heavy training prog. Later dudes.

Brown Bomber

Jernal wrote: »

Obama's real.

I think you are missing the point.

I was demonstrating that caricature A is not always the same as caricature B.

Also, the racist Obama cartoon is an example of the individual representing a whole group (US blacks) by having negative stereotypes applied to him i.e. it is racist against all blacks: not just Obama - which is precisely what I was I was speaking of before with the Muhammed cartoons.

Brown Bomber

Nodin wrote: »

.....who said anything about a racist portrayal? O yes - you. The 'don't-give-a-crap-about-muslims-but-will-get-this-forum-if-it-kills-him' guy.

Terrific. You bang on and on about not getting a response a question that didn't deserve answering and when I finally do you immediately turn the conversation personal again.

Nice work ...

Zillah

Your English is much better than it used to be, BB. Congratulations.

You're not making much more sense than you used to but I suppose one can't have it all.

Brown Bomber

Zillah wrote: »

Your English is much better than it used to be, BB. Congratulations.

You're not making much more sense than you used to but I suppose one can't have it all.

Backhanded "compliments" and sarcasm to thinly veil your personal attacks - classy.

It would be nice if these kinds of disruptions could be moderated but I suppose you can't have it all.

Delirium

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I think you are missing the point.

I was demonstrating that caricature A is not always the same as caricature B.

Also, the racist Obama cartoon is an example of the individual representing a whole group (US blacks) by having negative stereotypes applied to him i.e. it is racist against all blacks: not just Obama - which is precisely what I was I was speaking of before with the Muhammed cartoons.

the comparison doesn't work though as the negative stereotypes applied to Obama are historically racist slurs against black people.

Have Muslims ever been stereotyped as "donkey lovers"?

Turtwig

Zillah wrote: »

Your English is much better than it used to be, BB. Congratulations.

You're not making much more sense than you used to but I suppose one can't have it all.

No mr of d's tieps of cmnts, pls.
k, thx bi
xoxox

Sarky

koth wrote: »

Have Muslims ever been stereotyped as "donkey lovers"?

The closest we've come to that in this thread is Brown Bomber telling us again and again that a picture of some Persian guy shagging a donkey means Muslims are being stereotyped as "donkey lovers".

Bit of an own goal tbh.

Brown Bomber

koth wrote: »

the comparison doesn't work though as the negative stereotypes applied to Obama are historically racist slurs against black people.

Have Muslims ever been stereotyped as "donkey lovers"?

Not "donkey lovers" per se but as a backward, "other" culture/society whose evolution/moral structure has been retarded by it's religion. The sleazy, sex-crazed Arab/Moslem man is a stereotype which is played out by a a male symbol of Islam raping an animal.

I would have assumed that atheists here would have been aware of this. Militant atheists like Harris and Hitchens have been at the forefront of this modern "(secular) white man's burden" bull**** where we have to to bomb and kill them to negate their dogma which is a danger unto themselves and to us.

oldrnwisr

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Not "donkey lovers" per se but as a backward, "other" culture/society whose evolution/moral structure has been retarded by it's religion. The sleazy, sex-crazed Arab/Moslem man is a stereotype which is played out by a a male symbol of Islam raping an animal.

I would have assumed that atheists here would have been aware of this. Militant atheists like Harris and Hitchens have been at the forefront of this modern "(secular) white man's burden" bull**** where we have to to bomb and kill them to negate their dogma which is a danger unto themselves and to us.

The thing is BB that there are things which are sanctioned in Islamic culture which are backwards and detestable and which has remained unchanged or retarded as you put it because of their religion.

Just take spousal abuse, for example.

Beating your wife is not only sanctioned in the Quran:

Men are in charge of women by

what Allah has given one over the other and what they spend [for maintenance] from their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in [the husband's] absence what Allah would have them guard. But those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance - [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them. But if they obey you [once more], seek no means against them. Indeed, Allah is ever Exalted and Grand.
Surah 4:34


[We said], "And take in your hand a bunch [of grass] and strike with it and do not break your oath." Indeed, We found him patient, an excellent servant. Indeed, he was one repeatedly turning back [to Allah ].
Surah 38:44
(The context of this verse may not be entirely clear on its own. This verse depicts Allah directing Job to beat his wife).


This approval is also evidenced in various hadiths:


Rifa'a divorced his wife whereupon 'AbdurRahman bin Az-Zubair Al-Qurazi married her. 'Aisha said that the lady (came), wearing a green veil (and complained to her (Aisha) of her husband and showed her a green spot on her skin caused by beating). It was the habit of ladies to support each other, so when Allah's Apostle came, 'Aisha said, "I have not seen any woman suffering as much as the believing women. Look! Her skin is greener than her clothes!"
Sahih Al-Bukhari 72-715

(Mohammed doesn't admonish the husband for beating his wife and directs her to return to him)

I said: Messenger of Allah, may my father and mother be ransom for you, and then I told him (the whole story). He said: Was it the darkness (of your shadow) that I saw in front of me? I said: Yes. He struck me on the chest which caused me pain, and then said: Did you think that Allah and His Apostle would deal unjustly with you? She said: Whatsoever the people conceal, Allah will know it.
Sahih Muslim 4-2127

(That's Mohammed actually beating his wife)3


The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: A man will not be asked as to why he beat his wife.
Sahih Abu-Dawud 11-2142


Now, historic evidence of the practice is not incriminating on its own. After all, I'm sure that domestic abuse was common regardless of society in this era. The damning aspect of this, however, is that the practice continues to happen and be sanctioned today.

A study by Human Rights Watch for example, found that 85% of women in Afghanistan experience domestic violence.

Afghanistan: Ending Child Marriage and Domestic Violence


Another study by the WHO found another high rate of abuse in Bangladesh

WHO Multi-country Study on Women's Health and Domestic Violence against Women


As I said above, not only does this practice happen but it is sanctioned by certain influential Muslims:
"These organizations have remained malignantly silent on the issue of the equality of women, their support of Islamism, and barriers against women’s rights in their interpretation of sharia. For example, Dr. Muzammil H. Siddiqi, former president of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), has said in April 2004 in a fatwa (religious opinion or ruling) for the popular Islamist site, Islamonline.net of the Muslim Brotherhood out of Qatar that,

“It is important that a wife recognizes the authority of her husband in the house. He is the head of the household, and she is supposed to listen to him…a husband may use some light disciplinary action in order to correct the moral infraction of his wife, but this is only applicable in extreme cases and it should be resorted to if one is sure it would improve the situation. However, if there is a fear that it might worsen the relationship or may wreak havoc on him or the family, then he should avoid it completely. in some cases a husband may use some light disciplinary action in order to correct the moral infraction of his wife…”

Source


Then there's Egyptian cleric Abd Al-Rahman Mansour:

Islam instructs a man to beat his wife as a last resort before divorce, so that she will mend her ways, treat him with kindness and respect, and know that her husband has a higher status than her.

Source


So, the basic tenets which allows men to justify their actions is present in the Quran. It has been practised historically as well as in modern societies and in some places this has been due to influential scholars showing approval of the practice. So the stereotype you speak of, at least in this regard, is justified. The moral structure of a culture has been impeded because of their religion.

Now, satire can be a very concise and incisive way of getting your point across, particularly when the overall point is highly complex. Now as much as you can disagree with the graphic nature of the image, underneath that there is a real criticism to be made.

Delirium

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Not "donkey lovers" per se but as a backward, "other" culture/society whose evolution/moral structure has been retarded by it's religion. The sleazy, sex-crazed Arab/Moslem man is a stereotype which is played out by a a male symbol of Islam raping an animal.

Arab != Muslim (and vice versa) FYI.

the picture is centuries old. Muhammed lived centuries ago. How exactly do these things portray Muslim men alive today as sleazy + sex crazed?

Walk me through it, as frankly, I don't see it.

Turtwig

Slightly OT but didn't we have a mod who condoned a husband beating his wife?