• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Mosque/Mohamed picture

tsig said:
When you start modifying your behavior because someone might be offended, where do you stop?
Click to expand...

Probably right around the point where you do things for the express purpose of offense.
 
johnny karate said:
Probably right around the point where you do things for the express purpose of offense.
Click to expand...

Well I take offense at you posting at JREF. Any further post by you will be taken by me as done "for the express purpose of offense". :(
 
Last edited:
tsig said:
When you start modifying your behavior because someone might be offended, where do you stop?
Click to expand...
I think about whether my message is worth the risk of offending someone. If yes, I proceed.

It is a bit like farting in public. Do I need it, then let it rip. Otherwise, hold it back.

Hans
 
johnny karate said:
Probably right around the point where you do things for the express purpose of offense.
Click to expand...

That's a good point. There is a difference between someone doing something for their own personal reasons that just happens to offend someone. As opposed to doing something within ones rights but with the express purpose of being offensive.
 
tsig said:
Well I take offense at you posting at JREF. Any further post by you will be taken by me as done "for the express purpose of offense". :(
Click to expand...
No. The offender's purpose is what counts. You will always find someone who is offended.

And point two is: You must live with being offended.

The idea of not offending without good reason is simply to make life easier, for all.

Hans
 
What's the point of this thread exactly?

The "mosque" offends people irrationally. A picture of Mohammed would irrationally offend others.

OK, now what?
 
KingMerv00 said:
What's the point of this thread exactly?

The "mosque" offends people irrationally. A picture of Mohammed would irrationally offend others.

OK, now what?
Click to expand...
We would now be on kindergarten level.

Hans
 
The picture should be fine, as long as it contains the following disclaimer: "Any likeness to actual prophets, either living, dead, or imagined, is strictly coincidental."
 
KingMerv00 said:
What's the point of this thread exactly?

The "mosque" offends people irrationally. A picture of Mohammed would irrationally offend others.

OK, now what?
Click to expand...

The difference is that the picture of Mohammad (an Idea I actually like) would not be done if there wasn't a Muslim center being built and would be done ONLY because of the Muslim center. Where as the Muslim center being built has absolutely nothing to do with the WTC.

I suppose one could argue that they think that the center is being built because of WTC despite no evidence, but there wouldn't be any question as to why a picture would be hung across the street.

Can't disagree on the irrational part of both sides, just that I see a bit of a difference.
 
what would be the point of putting up a large picture of Mohammed, across the street from the Park 51 Mosque?

what would be the objective?

there is no direct evidence that the objective of the Park 51 Mosque is to have a monument celebrating 9-11, or to offend the victim's families.

but, there IS direct evidence that the objective of a large picture of Mohammed, across the street from the mosque, would be to offend Muslims.

how nice.
 
Last edited:
//what would be the objective? //

Demonstrating freedom of speech. Testing how legitimate their claim of tolerance is. They want tolerance of religion (understandably), will they show the same tolerance when someone does something they don't agree with?
 
Jonnyclueless said:
//what would be the objective? //

Demonstrating freedom of speech. Testing how legitimate their claim of tolerance is. They want tolerance of religion (understandably), will they show the same tolerance when someone does something they don't agree with?
Click to expand...

so that would be the point of the picture? to test the Muslims?

to see how committed they are to Freedom of Speech?

will the picture be as offensive as possible, to test the Muslims to the max?

what BS. right-wingers and racists showing their true colors.

conceptualizing putting up an offensive picture of Mohammed, just for spite.

for the SOUL purpose of offending Muslims.
 
Last edited:
quadraginta said:
Both of them were Semitic, weren't they? How about a picture of an appropriately ethnic looking dude in period dress, and whatever kind of visual clues would suggest both of them, with the caption, "Jesus ... or Muhammad?"

That would probably offend everyone who cares about that kind of stuff equally, and then they could join together protesting the insensitivity of ... well, whoever. At least they'd be doing it together.

That's one way to bring about mutual understanding.
Click to expand...

... I like it!
 
Thunder said:
so that would be the point of the picture? to test the Muslims?

to see how committed they are to Freedom of Speech?

will the picture be as offensive as possible, to test the Muslims to the max?

what BS. right-wingers and racists showing their true colors.

conceptualizing putting up an offensive picture of Mohammed, just for spite.

for the SOUL purpose of offending Muslims.
Click to expand...

As already stated to see if they actually support tolerance. Offensive as possible? Who determines what is offensive? That's kind of the point. You could have a picture of a carrot with the label "Mohammad" and that could be offensive. Same with the Mosque.
 
tsig said:
Would it be OK if someone exercised their freedom of speech and put a large picture of Mohamed right across the street from the proposed NYC mosque?
Click to expand...


I'm OK with the community center (it's not a mosque, folks) and while there's no legal (potentially) or constitutional reason to deny the hanging of such a sign, I would probably be against it.

Why? This:

johnny karate said:
Probably right around the point where you do things for the express purpose of offense.
Click to expand...


Intentionally offending a group that is not intentionally offending you is not a very good way to make a point, in my opinion.
 
tsig said:
Well I take offense at you posting at JREF. Any further post by you will be taken by me as done "for the express purpose of offense". :(
Click to expand...

Seconded. Freedom of speech means freedom to be offended as well
 
Cl1mh4224rd said:
Intentionally offending a group that is not intentionally offending you is not a very good way to make a point, in my opinion.
Click to expand...

But the people against the "Mosque" feel that it IS intentionally offensive. Their problem is that they think the people building it ARE trying to be offensive but won't admit it. Their gripe is that the people building it are trying to rub their religion and 9/11 in the faces of those who died.

I am not saying they are justified in their belief, but from their position it would be the same thing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom