TotalF1 Jens

Prophet Muhammad Controversy

239 posts in this topic

this is not the first and only time ,i am refering to his repeated "paintings" that have been auctioned in the past :rolleyes2: some ,he claims went as donations to Ngo's , he pocketed the rest :rolleyes2:

Doesn't represent political clout as a whole for the community even if one prominent Muslim manages it.

thats what you get for having links with the ISI(inter service intelligence) organisational wing of the Pak army
The RSS wasn't banned after the Babri demolition.
Brinda Karat is the last person to believe and use as a source on such matters.the "central govt" lab tested the medicines and found no human remains.infact it is some "alopathic " drugs that contain Gelatin(obtained from human bones) ,without even "mentioning" it in the cover.

The labs found human D.N.A. even if I ignore your comment on Karat's integrity which I shouldn't really.

you dont know about the proactive role played by me to control rioting after "bomb blasts" shook my city ,some time back .this is not a boast ,just want to tell you ,dont twist and use sentences and "phrases" like Gandhian" according" to your needs and fancies.

it was only yesterday,you called me "stupid ideal world junkies " :rolleyes2:

Sorry no personal offence intended, though I completely disagree with Gandhism as a philosophy. Didn't get the point of your comment about the train though. Don't doubt what you're saying about the blasts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.

The labs found human D.N.A. even if I ignore your comment on Karat's integrity which I shouldn't really.

:D

ARE YOU A "RED FLAG" STUDENT

Forgot the acronym for their student organisation "I..

something :wacko:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not that Red though not right wing either. India is a prime example of the problems with socialism.

Restricted capitalism I'd say :eusa_think:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not that Red though not right wing either. India is a prime example of the problems with socialism.

:eusa_think:

then i guess you are

"

Haath

Aam aadmi ke saath"

:eusa_think:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I prefer to make a separation between art for art's sake, and news journalism. ( I accept that many people who have protested especially the extremists would not draw that distinction. )
If you truly support freedom of speech and expression, there is no distinction to be made. By the attempt to draw such "separations", you ultimately only support the expression of speech which meets with your approval, and not that which meets with your disdain. In the final analysis, you end up advocating an arbitrary and hollow "freedom".
it is not a question of support of freedom of speech on a personal basis, but to distinguish between what is permitted by the rule of law and what is not.

Narain, you are taking our discussion out of context. Cav never said anything about distinguishing between that which was illegal and that which was not, but rather he was making the point that he distinguished art from journalism (implying that one was a form of free speech worthy of protection while the other was not....)

Having said that, the "law" tends to be no less arbitrary when it comes to imposing limits on freedom of expression. As a result, one cannot say, "I am a proponent of free speech, so long as that speech is deemed legal". If so, your support is unprincipled, and all you will achieve is the maintainance of the status quo. That is not being a proponent of "free" speech, but rather, of "qualified" speech.

You're either in favor of free speech or you're not, there is no middle ground.

no civilised society can allow an irate, extremist mob to set an embassy building ablaze, whatever provocation may cause such an orchestrated act of violence .

I quite agree with you Narain, but that is not an example of "free speech", it is an example of mob behaviour (or rioting, if you will). Speech (or expression), in it's truest sense, is limited to the conveyance of an idea in the abstract, and is not manifested in physical force. At that point, it transitions from idea (or expression) to action, and as a result, those actions which cause harm or physical consequences for others arguably fall within the ambit of the law.

I'm not talking principles here, just practicality..... I don't know of a society mature enough to handle complete freedom of press, and I am not sure if people as a whole are mature enough to either.

With all due respect, I care nothing for practicalities.... they do nothing to advance the development of a more tolerant environment within which each of us enjoys the liberty to fully express ourselves and live free of arbitrary limits.

Edit: sorry missed your comments about Canada earlier. Well then I guess the difference is you strive to remove those limits, whereas the society here needs to change before such limits could be removed.

As for India, societies take time to change unfortunately, especially one carrying a huge baggage of religion. Publishing of something of that kind would lead to a situation similar to what happened in Lebanon etc. The difference is Muslims do not have political clout in India. So if those cartoons insulted Muslims, the violence would be curtailed. However if they insulted Hindus, people will die. Thousands or even more :( .

So in the interest of peace I support limits which do not inhibit a legitimate purpose.

No civilised society would allow something like Gujarat to happen (In 2002 over 2000 Muslims weer massacerd in communal riots in India). No civilised society would allow Abu Ghraib to happen (more images released today). Its not all black and white..

I agree that in the interest of peace, we should strive towards greater understanding and mutual respect. That is self-evident. But where we differ is in how to achieve that. You would have people censor themselves so as to not offend, whereas I would urge people to broaden their perspective so as to not take offence. In my humble opinion, should we follow your approach, it would not challenge people to engage in self analysis and expand tolerance, but instead, to once again merely reinforce the status quo.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Narain, you are taking our discussion out of context. Cav never said anything about distinguishing between that which was illegal and that which was not, but rather he was making the point that he distinguished art from journalism (implying that one was a form of free speech worthy of protection while the other was not....)

Having said that, the "law" tends to be no less arbitrary when it comes to imposing limits on freedom of expression. As a result, one cannot say, "I am a proponent of free speech, so long as that speech is deemed legal". If so, your support is unprincipled, and all you will achieve is the maintainance of the status quo. That is not being a proponent of "free" speech, but rather, of "qualified" speech.

You're either in favor of free speech or you're not, there is no middle ground.

I quite agree with you Narain, but that is not an example of "free speech", it is an example of mob behaviour (or rioting, if you will). Speech (or expression), in it's truest sense, is limited to the conveyance of an idea in the abstract, and is not manifested in physical force. At that point, it transitions from idea (or expression) to action, and as a result, those actions which cause harm or physical consequences for others arguably fall within the ambit of the law.

With all due respect, I care nothing for practicalities.... they do nothing to advance the development of a more tolerant environment within which each of us enjoys the liberty to fully express ourselves and live free of arbitrary limits.

I agree that in the interest of peace, we should strive towards greater understanding and mutual respect. That is self-evident. But where we differ is in how to achieve that. You would have people censor themselves so as to not offend, whereas I would urge people to broaden their perspective so as to not take offence. In my humble opinion, should we follow your approach, it would not challenge people to engage in self analysis and expand tolerance, but instead, to once again merely reinforce the status quo.....

no,for me free speech ,and "legal speech" are not different..

if not,ithen n that case scrap the bloody law itself...

clearly some guidelines are required though,as cavallino states,your form of radical "thinking" does not work practically,btw u urself state that u dont care if it is "practical" or not :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
no,for me free speech ,and "legal speech" are not different..

if not, then n that case scrap the bloody law itself...

Speech which is subject to regulation by the mechanism of law is not free, but rather is constrained by those legal limits. By definition therefore, it is not free, but limited or "qualified". To be free to express oneself, one must not be limited by such constraints, else there is no point in freedom.

clearly some guidelines are required though, as cavallino states, your form of radical "thinking" does not work practically, btw u urself state that u dont care if it is "practical" or not :D

Why should your (or anyone else's) sense of practicality be sufficient cause to limit the free expression of my thoughts and ideas? Are your sensibilities so fragile? And even if they are, why should I temper my expression out of concern for the mere psychological distress it might cause you (or others) to hear it? That is truly an arbitrary limit on the freedom of speech if ever I heard one.

Surely you can muster a better argument than that?????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Are your sensibilities so fragile?

no :D

but that cant be said of everyone,hence it is my opinion that such "speech" is insensitive at best and provocative at other times

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Y'know, I am really, really happy to be an atheist. No hang ups, no guilt complex, no overwhelming urge to blow things up, no hand wringing or gnashing of teeth. It's not nearly as boring as it sounds, I promise.

I would find myself the lowest of all species to believe that I, and everything else, have evolved from rocks or 'rock soup' over billions of years. Some scientists say that the earth is just over 7 thousand years old while some say that it is millions and millions of years old (obviously to support their evolutionery beliefs).

We claim to be intelligent and then we come about the mysterious Big Bang theory, a fairy tale for adults. Where the entire universe was created by a single atom (leave alone where this atom came from ...) exploding. How can we believe that life evolved from 'nothing'.

I tell you that it takes greater faith believing in evolution than it does believing in God.

The Bible says in the book of Proverbs: 'Only a fool believes in his heart that there is no God'.

Evolutionists can't account for alot of thing's (missing links etc.) eg.:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I respect your beliefs Ash, and I would not try to change them, I just don't share them.

You're happy and I'm happy. :D

Edited by monza gorilla

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I respect your beliefs Ash, and I would not try to change them, I just don't share them.

You're happy and I'm happy. :D

Monza, can I tell you a little secret?

I am God!

Just kidding man, ;) .

Cool!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Are your sensibilities so fragile?
no :D but that can't be said of everyone, hence it is my opinion that such "speech" is insensitive at best and provocative at other times

Of course free speech is often insensitive and provocative, but why should speech be polite or even politic to be permissible? How will the spheres of thought, reason, and knowledge be advanced if we are not allowed to challenge the popularly held tenets of the majority. This must, as a matter of necessity, include challenges to those closely and dearly held beliefs, prejudices, customs, and ideologies of all men. Those that should survive will, and those that no longer serve us, or have become outdated, will (quite appropriately) fade into history. Such is the evolution of mankind's existence that is brought about through thought and reason.

Remember that we once all agreed the world was flat, and the blasphemy of secular thought often guaranteed a sudden and certain death.

I would find myself the lowest of all species to believe that I, and everything else, have evolved from rocks or 'rock soup' over billions of years. Some scientists say that the earth is just over 7 thousand years old while some say that it is millions and millions of years old (obviously to support their evolutionery beliefs).

Let me begin by saying that what follows is not inteded to be an attack on your (or anyone else's) religious beliefs, but rather a defense of scientific theory and the value of rationalism.

With all due respect Ash, very very very few scientists would even entertain the theory that the world is only a few thousand years old (and I am being very charitable in calling its proponents scientists). It is generally only the Intelligent Design advocates who even bother to trot that entirely discredited theory out anymore.

We claim to be intelligent and then we come about the mysterious Big Bang theory, a fairy tale for adults. Where the entire universe was created by a single atom (leave alone where this atom came from ...) exploding. How can we believe that life evolved from 'nothing'.

Ash that is a gross mischaracterization of the Big Bang theory. It does not suggest that the modern universe originated from a single atom, but rather from a singularity (which is not at all the same thing). Neither does the Big Bang theory postulate that this singularity simply sprang into existence from nothingness. Rather it acknowledges that the universe in its present state can be traced back to its likely formative event (i.e. the Big Bang), but that the universe and all its matter very likely existed (in some form) before that event as well.

Here is a simple query for you. If we, as mortal men, have no difficulty comprehending the infiniteness of time as it expands into the future, why do we struggle to consider that time could equally stretch infintely into the past? In other words, why do we seem to insist that the physical universe have a beginning at all?

I tell you that it takes greater faith believing in evolution than it does believing in God.

Well, now you're conflating the theory of evolution with Big Bang theory, and although both are scientific concepts/theories, the two are largely unrelated. Having said that, Big Bang theory and the theory of evolution are both testable scientific theories (and have been validated by vast amounts of scientific and experimental data), while your belief in God and creationism is not. As a result, acceptance of these theories has nothing to do with faith, while the theists denial is rooted entirely in his faith.

The Bible says in the book of Proverbs: 'Only a fool believes in his heart that there is no God'.

Evolutionists can't account for alot of thing's (missing links etc.) eg.:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jay, sometimes I wonder where you get the energy to type so much!

Personally, I felt no need to answer Ash at any length simply because I'm quite comfortable with my stance and do not feel any need to defend it or explain it to anyone.

Or maybe I just can't be bothered at the moment. ^_^

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jay, sometimes I wonder where you get the energy to type so much!

OCD

Personally, I felt no need to answer Ash at any length simply because I'm quite comfortable with my stance and do not feel any need to defend it or explain it to anyone.

Or maybe I just can't be bothered at the moment. ^_^

Or (to paraphrase) maybe discretion is the better part of wisdom, my friend? It's quite possible that I'm yet a student.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jay, sometimes I wonder where you get the energy to type so much!

Personally, I felt no need to answer Ash at any length simply because I'm quite comfortable with my stance and do not feel any need to defend it or explain it to anyone.

Or maybe I just can't be bothered at the moment. ^_^

he is "Half a decade"(sounds BIG :P ) younger to you
OCD
:eyebrow::what:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OCD
:eyebrow::what:

It was a joke..... Obsessive Compulsive Disorder...... dammit, it always loses something in the explanation......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Or (to paraphrase) maybe discretion is the better part of wisdom, my friend? It's quite possible that I'm yet a student.....

I just don't have large enough chunks of time to make long posts. Anyway, if a post does not offend me, or undermine the foundations of my own belief system (arrived at after much navel gazing I might add - why is the fluff always blue??) then I see no need to pursue a debate, or to offend my potential adversary. It serves no purpose and is of no advantage to me. Of course, sometimes I just have to have a pop out of devilment (see testing thread :rolleyes: ), but on the whole I have tolerance and humour in abundant quantities and have no reason to convince anyone that I'm right. I just am, and that's enough for me. I tend not to think in a linear fashion, which doesn't help much either - rambling is second nature and I'd hate to bore anyone to an early grave.

Apropos boredom, check out the late R.Kliban for insight.

Edited by monza gorilla

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
. Of course, sometimes I just have to have a pop out of devilment (see testing thread :rolleyes: ),

comparing testing times is ridiculous :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
comparing testing times is ridiculous :D

Damn, I am discovered! :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I just don't have large enough chunks of time to make long posts. Anyway, if a post does not offend me, or undermine the foundations of my own belief system (arrived at after much navel gazing I might add - why is the fluff always blue??) then I see no need to pursue a debate, or to offend my potential adversary. It serves no purpose and is of no advantage to me. Of course, sometimes I just have to have a pop out of devilment (see testing thread :rolleyes: ), but on the whole I have tolerance and humour in abundant quantities and have no reason to convince anyone that I'm right. I just am, and that's enough for me. I tend not to think in a linear fashion, which doesn't help much either - rambling is second nature and I'd hate to bore anyone to an early grave.

Apropos boredom, check out the late R.Kliban for insight.

I agree, I do not go looking to offend, and attempt to avoid it whenever possible, but at the same time I recognize no sacred cows.... (and while we're on the topic of offence, please forgive the coloquialism, it is not intended to offend anyone).

I guess my greatest failing is in an intolerance for inaccuracy or hypocricy. I do tend to root it out whenever I recognize it........ and have time.

Speaking of which, I'm off to work!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now