• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should we flood the world with images of Muhammed?

Should we flood the world with images of Muhammed?

  • Total voters
    70
Peter King said:
You do not have to revere anything, especially as I was not aware you were "forced to have to revere someone else's idol".

BTW, the same goes the other way around too. It is ****ing ridiculous that I should have to revere someone else's idol.
Click to expand...

I don't know anyone who is advocating for that but you. There is no reason a non-Muslim who wants to point out the hypocrisy of radical Islam shouldn't be allowed to depict Muhammad.
 
whysoserious said:
I don't know anyone who is advocating for that but you. There is no reason a non-Muslim who wants to point out the hypocrisy of radical Islam shouldn't be allowed to depict Muhammad.
Click to expand...

Advocating what exactly? That other people have the right to restrict misuse of freedom of speech? Sorry my statement had nothing to do with religion, not with Mohammed, not with Islam (radical or otherwise), not with christianity or any other faith.
 
spangledbanner said:
We Australians are not American or French and this type of thing is illegal in Australia. Charlie Hedbo could not have published his trash in Australia or he would have been arrested. We have laws that make his type of trash illegal. In Australia you cannot use media to insult or humiliate people.

Do you French and Americans want to start insulting Aboriginals do you? If you have such freedom to be obnoxious then what is all the fuss over the Redskins logo?

Is attacking African Americans with media an act of freedom and artistic expression? This is what the world has come to with USA leading and France as "the capital of the world" is it? You French and Americans have the right to be offensive, obnoxious and provocative and this is freedom is it? Well not in Australia. Us Aussies disagree with your uncivilized idea of freedom.
Click to expand...


You must really hate freedom of speech if you want it to be illegal to draw a caricature of a dead person. You're free to your own authoritarian opinion but let's please not act like any majority of civilized countries have such anti-free speech laws.
 
apdst said:
We ​understand that freedom of speech excludes speech that could cause physical harm. Aside from that, all speech is free, even if it pisses someone off.
Click to expand...

No it isn't. You can't put swear words on kids programming. Kids can't go to R-Rated movies. You ever catch an HBO show outside of HBO? It's completely washed free of swears or any language which may be seen as too full of curse words. Ever seen modern music on TV? Between the changed words and the blank spaces, it's hard to make up just what a lot of these songs are saying. We have free speech zones because the government can determine where and when you can assemble. We have a ton of restrictions on "free speech". So no, "all speech is" not "free". Not in America anyways.

It isn't even free in France. That's why when all of the right wing hacks started complaining that Obama didn't show up next to all of those world leaders to "support" free speech I just laughed. Egypt? France? England? THOSE are the countries we should unite with in our defence of free speech? It's almost like people don't know the level of censorship that exists in these countries. Jordan? Lmao. Turkey? Please. They're hypocrites. All of them.
 
Last edited:
Hatuey said:
No it isn't. You can't put swear words on kids programming. Kids can't go to R-Rated movies. You ever catch an HBO show outside of HBO? It's completely washed free of swears or any language which may be seen as too full of curse words. Ever seen modern music on TV? Between the changed words and the blank spaces, it's hard to make up just what a lot of these songs are saying. We have free speech zones because the government can determine where and when you can assemble. We have a ton of restrictions on "free speech". So no, "all speech is" not "free". Not in America anyways.

It isn't even free in France. That's why when all of the right wing hacks started complaining that Obama didn't show up next to all of those world leaders to "support" free speech I just laughed. Egypt? France? England? THOSE are the countries we should unite with in our defence of free speech? It's almost like people don't know the level of censorship that exists in these countries. Jordan? Lmao. Turkey? Please. They're hypocrites. All of them.
Click to expand...

Watching you tap dance around the truth is something to see. You know what he was saying, and trying to cling to the exceptions proves the rule. Quick! Look over there! :golf
 
sawdust said:
Suddenly people are acting like Facebook posts, tweets and instagram posts are meaningful. They are nonsense and not meaningful.
Click to expand...

That's not entirely true. Again I'll reference the ice bucket challenge. Tell the people with ALS that facebook posts are meaningless.

Social media is rather huge. But I wasn't suggesting that social media be the ONLY source for the protest. Every avenue of the internet could be used, INCLUDING facebook, instagram.....but also printed media and television and everything with a graphic display.

I'm imagining that anywhere somebody turned they would be exposed to a picture (doesn't have to be outwardly hostile) of muhammed. TV, internet, newspaper, magazine, flyer, billboard, advertisement.....

For many private individuals all they could possibly do to "join the process" might be to post something on facebook. So be it.

Maybe everybody who's a member of a forum on the internet uses a muhammed picture for their avatar.

Solidarity among multiple billions. Collectively and simultaneously. Could be very powerful.
 
US Conservative said:
Watching you tap dance around the truth is something to see. You know what he was saying, and trying to cling to the exceptions proves the rule.
Click to expand...

Lmao, the above drive by post made me chuckle. Mostly because you clearly don't understand the larger point or you really believe the rhetoric about freedom of speech. In either case, :lol:. Carry on, I don't really expect you to do more than repeat catch phrases somehow related to "dancing".
 
Last edited:
Hatuey said:
Lmao, the above drive by post made me chuckle. Mostly because you clearly don't understand the larger point or you really believe the rhetoric about freedom of speech. In either case, :lol:. Carry on, I don't really expect you to do more than repeat catch phrases somehow related to "dancing".
Click to expand...

What do you have against freedom of speech? Is it because you are a leftist?
 
Hatuey said:
Nothing.



Fallacious arguments so soon? At least give yourself 5 posts before your anemic understanding of a discussion becomes obvious.
Click to expand...

Yup, you hate free speech, even speech at the risk of physical harm. A violation of the Wests ideals. The Founders knew there'd be people like you.
 
US Conservative said:
Yup, you hate free speech.
Click to expand...

Does anybody who questions the merits of sweeping rhetoric inflame you? How PC.

The Founders knew there'd be people like you.
Click to expand...

The clairvoyant powers that common people attribute to The Founders always make me chuckle.
 
Last edited:
Dragonfly said:
In support of all victims of all islamic terrorist actions, should every single media outlet, publication, and private individual start printing/posting/publishing drawings of Muhammed?

Think about it. If every single person/business/group/corporation with a facebook page, instagram, snap chat, blog, forum, and web page spent a week posting nothing but pictures of Muhammed would it make a statement?

If every single non-muslim with the means to "protest" in this way banded together and posted pictures, it would number in the billions.

Would it make any kind of difference? Would it resonate with the Muslim world at all?

A world-wide grass-roots movement to collectively say "we're not going to submit to terrorist threats" and "we fully support the freedom of speech and freedom of the press/media". Would you participate?

Is it time for every single non-Muslim to post a cartoon/drawing of Muhammed in a collective gesture of support, and defiance against violence?
Click to expand...

if you want to sure
 
spangledbanner said:
Obama thinks that this Redskin logo nonsense is a serious issue. But he also thinks that Charlie Hedbo editor is some kind of libertarian hero? Hmm. Does that make any sense?

Does Obama want these banned Warner Bros cartoons to be shown to children again? What does Obama think of cartoons like Jungle Bunnies and Jungle Fever?



If you Americans are so free to be offensive and obnoxious, then why did you ban these racist and offensive Warner Bros cartoons? Arent these cartoons works of creative expression and strikes for French-American style freedom? LIBERTY!!! Right?

View attachment 67178791

FREEDOM! :)
Click to expand...


Lonny toons are awesome
 
Hatuey said:
Does anybody who questions the merits of sweeping rhetoric inflame you? How PC.



The clairvoyant powers that common people attribute to The Founders always make me chuckle.
Click to expand...

Common people? Kudos for bringing class struggle into this, as an explanation for your contempt of our rights. This is going well for you.
 
US Conservative said:
Common people? Kudos for bringing class struggle into this, as an explanation for your contempt of our rights. This is going well for you.
Click to expand...

John Adams; Thoughts on Government said:
A constitution founded on these principles introduces knowledge among the people, and inspires them with a conscious dignity becoming freemen; a general emulation takes place, which causes good humor, sociability, good manners, and good morals to be general. That elevation of sentiment inspired by such a government, makes the common people brave and enterprising. That ambition which is inspired by it makes them sober, industrious, and frugal.
Click to expand...

Benjamin Franklin said:
"That wise Men have in all Ages thought Government necessary for the Good of Mankind; and, that wise Governments have always thought Religion necessary for the well ordering and well-being of Society, and accordingly have been ever careful to encourage and protect the Ministers of it, paying them the highest public Honours, that their Doctrines might thereby meet with the greater Respect among the common People."
Click to expand...

Your obsession with what words you believe "the left" uses does make me laugh. It's pretty sad that you see certain words and your obsession leads you to believe it's something "a leftist" would say. However, I assure you, my young and defeated friend, saying "common people" has nothing to do with class struggle. It's a reference to people who aren't either nobility or from the priesthood.
 
Last edited:
US Conservative said:
Your words, common people. Not in a positive light.
Click to expand...

Oh? You gleamed that it wasn't in a positive light simply because? What? Aren't you a common man?

Like I said, this is going well for you. :lol:
Click to expand...

The guy who thinks saying "common people" is bringing in "class struggle" thinks it's not going well for the person who just showed him the Founders (who he attributes clairvoyant powers to) using the term "common people". Okay, now I'm laughing.
 
Hatuey said:
Oh? You gleamed that it wasn't in a positive light simply because? What? Aren't you a common man?



The guy who thinks saying "common people" is bringing in "class struggle" thinks it's not going well for the person who just showed him the Founders (who he attributes clairvoyant powers to) using the term "common people". Okay, now I'm laughing.
Click to expand...

I'd expect you to laugh. I know. You know. The forum knows. ;)
 
Hatuey said:
Your obsession with what words you believe "the left" uses does make me laugh. It's pretty sad that you see certain words and your obsession leads you to believe it's something "a leftist" would say. However, I assure you, my young and defeated friend, saying "common people" has nothing to do with class struggle. It's a reference to people who aren't either nobility or from the priesthood.
Click to expand...

LOL. Hat, you are neither Benjamin Franklin, nor John Adams. I think it would be safe to suggest their use of the words "common people" were never colored by the contempt you painted yours with.
 
US Conservative said:
I'd expect you to laugh. I know. You know. The forum knows. ;)
Click to expand...

Well yes, the forum knows that you associate words from the Founders with "class struggle". :lol:
 
between some 1 who says you deserve to burn for not being in a religion and some one who draws a picture even a rude one of a figure form said religion

I don't think its the artist who is being the most hateful and disrespectful

if drawing Mohamed is wrong then so is any form of Islam with a toast the unbeliever message in fact its worse

of course that applies to other religions as well

so if any 1 wants to draw a cartoon as long as your not telling people to attack or discriminate against Muslims go for it
 
Last edited:
Hatuey said:
Your obsession with what words you believe "the left" uses does make me laugh. It's pretty sad that you see certain words and your obsession leads you to believe it's something "a leftist" would say. However, I assure you, my young and defeated friend, saying "common people" has nothing to do with class struggle. It's a reference to people who aren't either nobility or from the priesthood.
Click to expand...

It also has a negative connotation. I prefer "ordinary people." We don't have "commoners" in the U.S.
 
ocean515 said:
LOL. Hat, you are neither Benjamin Franklin, nor John Adams. I think it would be safe to suggest their use of the words "common people" were never colored by the contempt you painted yours with.
Click to expand...

Interesting, on one hand we have US Constitution accusing the founding fathers of bringing in class struggle, then we have you pretending to know what I meant by "common people". Your opinions do make me chuckle, guys. :)
 
Hatuey said:
Interesting, on one hand we have US Constitution accusing the founding fathers of bringing in class struggle, then we have you pretending to know what I meant by "common people". Your opinions do make me chuckle, guys. :)
Click to expand...

Perhaps you could clear it up.

"The clairvoyant powers that common people attribute to The Founders always make me chuckle."

What do uncommon people like you attribute to The Founders?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom