UK school mobbed over image of Mohammed

[Vassenor]

It's all a case of No True Scotsman. You're only a True Muslim if your behaviour conforms to their stereotypes, which allows them to keep their narratives intact even when presented with contradictory evidence.

Umm. Can you give me some more details. Im just a bit unsure of the point.

People looking for excuses when presented with examples of Muslims who don't act the way they say that All Muslims act.

[Jedi Council]

Besides: The Organisation of Islamic Cooperation said that although they denounced "all acts of terror in the name of religion" it would continue to oppose "continued publication" of what it called "blasphemous cartoons".It added that it was the "suggestions of certain French leaders … that risk submerging French-Muslim relations"

Condemning acts of terror: Good

Opposing free speech: Bad

[Dowaesk]

Besides: The Organisation of Islamic Cooperation said that although they denounced "all acts of terror in the name of religion" it would continue to oppose "continued publication" of what it called "blasphemous cartoons".It added that it was the "suggestions of certain French leaders … that risk submerging French-Muslim relations"

Condemning acts of terror: Good

Opposing free speech: Bad

Being able to oppose free speech is part of free speech

[Islamic Holy Sites]

Besides: The Organisation of Islamic Cooperation said that although they denounced "all acts of terror in the name of religion" it would continue to oppose "continued publication" of what it called "blasphemous cartoons".It added that it was the "suggestions of certain French leaders … that risk submerging French-Muslim relations"

Condemning acts of terror: Good

Opposing free speech: Bad

They are condemning acts of terror, not opposing free speech.

[Genivaria]

Condemning acts of terror: Good

Opposing free speech: Bad

Being able to oppose free speech is part of free speech

No, no it is not.
You are very confused on how this works.

[Jedi Council]

Condemning acts of terror: Good

Opposing free speech: Bad

Being able to oppose free speech is part of free speech

Sure. That does not make if a good thing. It remains a very very bad thing.

Condemning acts of terror: Good

Opposing free speech: Bad

They are condemning acts of terror, not opposing free speech.

They were doing both per your quote.

Opposing the drawing of Mohammed is fundamentally anti-free speech. Its limiting the speech of people, especially non-muslims, who are not bound by the customs and laws of Islam.

[Genivaria]

Or as a teddybear.

With ofc the difference that said suicide bombers do infact cite the major religious figure as their example and idol.

This is comparable to saying that that Stalin represents secularism, if suicide bombers represent Islam.

Except that he didn't say suicide bombers represent Islam, he said that suicide bombers cite the major religious figure as their example and idol.
Reading is hard I know.

[Islamic Holy Sites]

Being able to oppose free speech is part of free speech

Sure. That does not make if a good thing. It remains a very very bad thing.

They are condemning acts of terror, not opposing free speech.

They were doing both per your quote.

Opposing the drawing of Mohammed is fundamentally anti-free speech. Its limiting the speech of people, especially non-muslims, who are not bound by the customs and laws of Islam.

Would you support something that basically insults you and your religion?

[Dowaesk]

Being able to oppose free speech is part of free speech

Sure. That does not make if a good thing. It remains a very very bad thing.

They are condemning acts of terror, not opposing free speech.

They were doing both per your quote.

Opposing the drawing of Mohammed is fundamentally anti-free speech. Its limiting the speech of people, especially non-muslims, who are not bound by the customs and laws of Islam.

But as Muslims, dont we have the freedom of speech to disagree with it?

[Dowaesk]

Sure. That does not make if a good thing. It remains a very very bad thing.



They were doing both per your quote.

Opposing the drawing of Mohammed is fundamentally anti-free speech. Its limiting the speech of people, especially non-muslims, who are not bound by the customs and laws of Islam.

Would you support something that basically insults you and your religion?

Many people here dont believe in God.

[Gravlen]

Being able to oppose free speech is part of free speech

No, no it is not.
You are very confused on how this works.

I don't think the confusion is on their part.

It is absolutely a part of my free speech to say I'm opposed to free speech, if that had been true. The Government can not - and should not - interfere with my right to express my political opinion on this matter.

[Dowaesk]

This is comparable to saying that that Stalin represents secularism, if suicide bombers represent Islam.

Except that he didn't say suicide bombers represent Islam, he said that suicide bombers cite the major religious figure as their example and idol.
Reading is hard I know.

By saying that. Isnt he implying it?

[Gravlen]

Being able to oppose free speech is part of free speech

Sure. That does not make if a good thing. It remains a very very bad thing.

They are condemning acts of terror, not opposing free speech.

They were doing both per your quote.

Opposing the drawing of Mohammed is fundamentally anti-free speech. Its limiting the speech of people, especially non-muslims, who are not bound by the customs and laws of Islam.

Depends on how you oppose it.

[Jedi Council]

Sure. That does not make if a good thing. It remains a very very bad thing.



They were doing both per your quote.

Opposing the drawing of Mohammed is fundamentally anti-free speech. Its limiting the speech of people, especially non-muslims, who are not bound by the customs and laws of Islam.

But as Muslims, dont we have the freedom of speech to disagree with it?

Now where did I say that Muslims cant oppose it?

Oh right I didn't.

All I'm saying is that if you oppose the drawing of silly cartoons or other depictions of Muhammad you are against free speech, which is a statement that is not mutually exclusive with yours.

Sure. That does not make if a good thing. It remains a very very bad thing.



They were doing both per your quote.

Opposing the drawing of Mohammed is fundamentally anti-free speech. Its limiting the speech of people, especially non-muslims, who are not bound by the customs and laws of Islam.

Would you support something that basically insults you and your religion?

Support? Probably not.

Try to silence and advocate for the limitation of other peoples rights because what I see is insulting? No.

It's not difficult to understand that a given religion should not force its beliefs on others in a secular society.

[Vassenor]

It's not so much "right to oppose free speech". It's "right to disagree with what you say".

[Dowaesk]

But as Muslims, dont we have the freedom of speech to disagree with it?

Now where did I say that Muslims cant oppose it?

Oh right I didn't.

All I'm saying is that if you oppose the drawing of silly cartoons or other depictions of Muhammad you are against free speech, which is a statement that is not mutually exclusive with yours.

As i said. Isnt it my freedom of speech to disagree. Im not stopping you. Im simply disagreeing. Becoz i got my Freedom of Speech.

[Jedi Council]

Now where did I say that Muslims cant oppose it?

Oh right I didn't.

All I'm saying is that if you oppose the drawing of silly cartoons or other depictions of Muhammad you are against free speech, which is a statement that is not mutually exclusive with yours.

As i said. Isnt it my freedom of speech to disagree. Im not stopping you. Im simply disagreeing. Becoz i got my Freedom of Speech.

But in doing so, in saying that I cannot support the publishing of cartoons or depictions of Muhammad, you are arguing for an unjust limitation of my right to free speech.

My argument is not infringing on your free speech.

That's the big difference.

[Kazumazu]

For all the jokes to be made about Christian defensiveness for their faith, Muslim outrage over bad jokes and stupid artwork seems to be a pastime.

[Dowaesk]

As i said. Isnt it my freedom of speech to disagree. Im not stopping you. Im simply disagreeing. Becoz i got my Freedom of Speech.

But in doing so, in saying that I cannot support the publishing of cartoons or depictions of Muhammad, you are arguing for an unjust limitation of my right to free speech.

My argument is not infringing on your free speech.

That's the big difference.

Free speech doesnt necessarily have to come when you want to do something to offend another.

[Vassenor]

For all the jokes to be made about Christian defensiveness for their faith, Muslim outrage over bad jokes and stupid artwork seems to be a pastime.

And exactly what makes a drawing of the Prophet Muhammad with a bomb in his turban just a bad joke?

[Jedi Council]

But in doing so, in saying that I cannot support the publishing of cartoons or depictions of Muhammad, you are arguing for an unjust limitation of my right to free speech.

My argument is not infringing on your free speech.

That's the big difference.

Free speech doesnt necessarily have to come when you want to do something to offend another.

Uh yes, yes it does.

You taking offense to something I say is not a reasonable basis to limit free speech.

Otherwise no one would be saying anything to anyone because everything can be offensive in some way shape or form.

So again; proving my point you do not truly support free speech.

[Gravlen]

As i said. Isnt it my freedom of speech to disagree. Im not stopping you. Im simply disagreeing. Becoz i got my Freedom of Speech.

But in doing so, in saying that I cannot support the publishing of cartoons or depictions of Muhammad, you are arguing for an unjust limitation of my right to free speech.

My argument is not infringing on your free speech.

That's the big difference.

This makes no sense.

[Jedi Council]

For all the jokes to be made about Christian defensiveness for their faith, Muslim outrage over bad jokes and stupid artwork seems to be a pastime.

And exactly what makes a drawing of the Prophet Muhammad with a bomb in his turban just a bad joke?

Yeah sometimes it can be a good joke too.

In all seriousness, these cartoons are satire. Quibble whether they should be shown in schools, though I will stress we do not know the context in this case, but we should not be arguing over whether or not they should be allowed.

[Jedi Council]

But in doing so, in saying that I cannot support the publishing of cartoons or depictions of Muhammad, you are arguing for an unjust limitation of my right to free speech.

My argument is not infringing on your free speech.

That's the big difference.

This makes no sense.

How so?

[Kazumazu]

For all the jokes to be made about Christian defensiveness for their faith, Muslim outrage over bad jokes and stupid artwork seems to be a pastime.

And exactly what makes a drawing of the Prophet Muhammad with a bomb in his turban just a bad joke?

I could link and post dozens and dozens of images of Jesus and other Christian figures in equally precarious and debatably offensive depictions in response to that. Of course I laugh at them all equally myself.

What makes the image in question any worse than the long-going mockery of Christianity?

EDIT: The only leg this might could stand on is it (the image) being shown in a place of education.