In a message dated 2/17/2008 3:08:57 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, shimgray@gmail.com writes:
What "the law" says or doesn't say has very little direct relevance to what people get directly offended by. This is not a game of nomic, as has been explained many times over.>>>
---------------------- Which is exactly the point. When extremists complain, the idea that we should respond, only opens the floodgates to the next *similar* complaint. The prohibition that are thinking they are under, affects all humans. Muhammed is not special in that way. The only thing that will happen, is they will shift their attention from Muhammed, to some other religious figure, until their ultimate goal which would be to suppress all human representation.
**************Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living. (http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-campos-duf... 2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)
On 17/02/2008, WJhonson@aol.com WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 2/17/2008 3:08:57 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, shimgray@gmail.com writes:
What "the law" says or doesn't say has very little direct relevance to what people get directly offended by. This is not a game of nomic, as has been explained many times over.>>>
Which is exactly the point. When extremists complain, the idea that we should respond, only opens the floodgates to the next *similar* complaint. The prohibition that are thinking they are under, affects all humans. Muhammed is not special in that way. The only thing that will happen, is they will shift their attention from Muhammed, to some other religious figure, until their ultimate goal which would be to suppress all human representation.
Oh, come off it.
Some people are honestly offended by something, for religious reasons. They say so, and ask us to alter what we're doing so as not to offend them further.
It's valid to say, "sure, we'll stop". Alternately, it's valid to say, "no, I'm sorry, but I think it's important to keep doing it for these reasons, and I hope you accept that". Both of those are valid responses, and the debate is over which one we should adopt - or whether a middle ground can be found, if the issue has to be phrased in a binary fashion.
But there are also unhelpful contributions to the debate. We see some of them out there on the Internet - that this is an elaborate plot to deliberately and with malice aforethought attack Islam. Of course it isn't; it's inertia and a habit to illustrate things leading us into an action some people don't like. But there are unhelpful contributions from *both* sides of the argument, and this is a prime example.
It treats it as some blind unthinking conspiracy whereby "they" are doing this to further the "ultimate goal", that we are dealing with an elaborate conspiracy of "extremists" trying to "suppress" us, that any protestations of honest intent are of nought compared to what we know they're really up to. Because, of course, we would never be able to conceive of Muslims as anything other than a shadowy, threatening, monolithically suspicious outside bogeyman - this sort of posting is the exact mirror image of "THEY ARE TRYING TO SLAP ISLAM IN THE FACE".
WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
...snipped...
In an attempt to be useful, I would like to identify the best within your complaint, WJhonson, so that we can acknowledge it and move past it.
The argument seems to go like this:
Since one basis for the objecting to Mohammad images in Wikipedia is based on Islamic traditions which also, in at least some cases, forbid other imagery, we might legitimately ask ourselves whether agreeing to do something about this case will lead to further demands to do something about other cases.
There are a number of reasonable responses to this reasonable inquiry, some of which most of us may find persuasive. But of course this core point is valid, i.e. will helping to find a compromise in this case actually help resolve anything?
Simply repeating over and over as if nothing can be done at all without falling into this trap does not appear to be usefully moving this discussion forward.
--Jimbo