Bravely Drawing Mohammed...

Damocles said:
Right, nobody should fight for the right to free speech when it may insult somebody....

I find your authoritarian views on this disconcerting.

So was "Piss Christ" art as in my post from above? It wasn't brave to create that one, but it evoked controversy as the artist originally intended. Did this invoke controversy? Is art that brings controversy art?

Regardless of the whole "art" argument, the guy did this as a protest against those who threaten to kill others for creating an image. It is much like the "Piss Christ" created to point out the right to free speech.
Click to expand...

No one called the "piss Christ" painting "bravery" .. and in my opinion, it was less "art" then it was a protest/comtroversy piece .. as it was painted to be..

There are FAR more legitimate expressions of free speech that has been denied than this garbage which was only meant to enflame. It would be the same if I drew your mother's face on a dog and called it art and free speech.

That would be bullshit and it would have no value other than to piss you off .. which is exactly the case here.

A long ass way from "brave"
 
blackascoal said:
No one called the "piss Christ" painting "bravery" .. and in my opinion, it was less "art" then it was a protest/comtroversy piece .. as it was painted to be..

There are FAR more legitimate expressions of free speech that has been denied than this garbage which was only meant to enflame. It would be the same if I drew your mother's face on a dog and called it art and free speech.

That would be bullshit and it would have no value other than to piss you off .. which is exactly the case here.

A long ass way from "brave"
Click to expand...
Major difference, my mother is not a controversial figure, and such a visage would never get you a death sentence in many nations.

This is a weak argument, based on creating a fallacy from reductio ad absurdam.

Does it take bravery to put your life on the line for a belief?
 
blackascoal said:
No one called the "piss Christ" painting "bravery" .. and in my opinion, it was less "art" then it was a protest/comtroversy piece .. as it was painted to be..

There are FAR more legitimate expressions of free speech that has been denied than this garbage which was only meant to enflame. It would be the same if I drew your mother's face on a dog and called it art and free speech.

That would be bullshit and it would have no value other than to piss you off .. which is exactly the case here.

A long ass way from "brave"
Click to expand...

Shut up, hitlerian nazi wanker. You don't believe in free speech and that makes you an asshole.
 
Damocles said:
Major difference, my mother is not a controversial figure, and such a visage would never get you a death sentence in many nations.

This is a weak argument, based on creating a fallacy from reductio ad absurdam.

Does it take bravery to put your life on the line for a belief?
Click to expand...

It takes stupidity to put your life on the line for 15 minutes of fame.

His painting changes nothing and as I said, has no value nor one iota of artistic merit beyond his desire to piss Muslims off. A couple of months from now, even you won't remember who the fuck he was.

Nor does it matter if your mother was famous or not .. that is your weak argument. If you told someone that if they painted your mothers face on a dog you would kill them, does that make the painter brave or simply stupid?
 
blackascoal said:
It takes stupidity to put your life on the line for 15 minutes of fame.

His painting changes nothing and as I said, has no value nor one iota of artistic merit beyond his desire to piss Muslims off. A couple of months from now, even you won't remember who the fuck he was.

Nor does it matter if your mother was famous or not .. that is your weak argument. If you told someone that if they painted your mothers face on a dog you would kill them, does that make the painter brave or simply stupid?
Click to expand...
I would not. That's preposterous. That you would project such inanity on me speaks more of you than anything I have seen to date.

I would not kill anybody for drawing a cartoon of my mother no matter what they put her face onto.

It would put no artist in danger to draw the face of most any human being onto any animal at all. Only a seriously deranged person would take such an activity and make it into a death sentence for the cartoonist.

Is it dangerous for him to draw Mohammed this way? Does it take any manner of courage to do such, even if you think it is "stupid"?
 
Damocles said:
I would not. That's preposterous. That you would project such inanity on me speaks more of you than of anything I have seen to date.

I would not kill anybody for drawing a cartoon of my mother no matter what they put her face onto.

It would put no artist in danger to draw the face of most any human being onto any animal at all. Only a seriously deranged person would take such an activity and make it into a death sentence for the cartoonist.

Is it dangerous for him to draw Mohammed this way? Does it take any manner of courage to do such, even if you think it is "stupid"?
Click to expand...

When I used you as an example it was not intended to suggest just you.

Get real and deal with the argument honestly. If ANYONE said they would kill or harm a person that painted a picture of their mother on a dog .. does that make the painter brave or just dumb? Is that an issue of "free speech" or would that be an issue of civil and sane speech?

What value is there in a picture of Mohammed's head on a dog? What purpose does it serve but to get you noticed? Does it change or make better relationships between christians and muslims?

I would no more call his stupidity any more brave that I would painitng a picture of ANYONE'S mother on a dog. Nor would I characterize it as an issue of free speech.

Is it dangerous for him to draw such a picture .. Yes.

Does it take any manner of courage to do so .. Absolutely not. It only takes desperation to be noticed and a healthy dose of stupidity. People do it all the time.

You may call climbing in a barrel and launching yourself (not you), over Niagra Fall a brave thing to do .. but I just call it stupid, which is exactly what it is.
 
Last edited:
I agree with Damo that it is a brave expression of free speech considering the reprisals against cartoonists and editors who dare criticize Islam.

On the other hand, it does have reprisals for people other than the cartoonist. I'm not sure I would start riots that kill dozens to make a point about free speech.
 
blackascoal said:
When I used you as an example it was not intended to suggest just you.
Click to expand...

Right. Yet you said, "What if they drew a picture of your mother..." It doesn't take much to suggest that it meant me.

Get real and deal with the argument honestly. If ANYONE said they would kill or harm a person that painted a picture of their mother on a dog .. does that make the painter brave or just dumb? Is that an issue of "free speech" or would that be an issue of civil and sane speech?
Click to expand...

It makes the person making the threat deranged. Seriously. How would anybody believe such a threat?

What value is there in a picture of Mohammed's head on a dog? What purpose does it serve but to get you noticed? Does it change or make better relationships between christians and muslims?
Click to expand...

The original drawing was of Mohammed with a bomb for a head, all further drawings are to make the point he will not be threatened to silence.

I would no more call his stupidity any more brave that I would painitng a picture of ANYONE'S mother on a dog. Nor would I characterize it as an issue of free speech.
Click to expand...

So, because you would not sentence him to death, you believe that such a statement has no apparent value?

Is it dangerous for him to draw such a picture .. Yes.

Does it take any manner of courage to do so .. Absolutely not. It only takes desperation to be noticed and a healthy dose of stupidity. People do it all the time.
Click to expand...

Yet, it takes courage to put your life on the line, even if it is for 'fame' as you suggest rather than a stance against the threats made on his life for a cartoon.

You may call climbing in a barrel and launching yourself (not you), over Niagra Fall a brave thing to do .. but I just call it stupid, which is exactly what it is.
Click to expand...

I think you dismiss this too easily because you think little of the sentiment because you do not want to understand the history behind it.
 
Warren said:
I agree with Damo that it is a brave expression of free speech considering the reprisals against cartoonists and editors who dare criticize Islam.

On the other hand, it does have reprisals for people other than the cartoonist. I'm not sure I would start riots that kill dozens to make a point about free speech.
Click to expand...
True. I think he too is a bit peeved at the original response to his cartoon with the bomb...
 
Warren said:
Not to egg on. But what do you think he expected to happen?
Click to expand...
At first it was just an editorial cartoon for a Danish Newspaper that he was using to illustrate that they used their religion to promote attacks. I don't know if he realized the original danger. How many would know such a restriction would be promoted onto others outside the religion?

Now, it is a direct message that he refuses to be intimidated to silence.
 
Lol.

"I don't care how many other people you kill you won't silence my right to free speech."

But yes I see your point. He clearly has a callous disregard for lives other than his own though.
 
Warren said:
Lol.

"I don't care how many other people you kill you won't silence my right to free speech."

But yes I see your point. He clearly has a callous disregard for lives other than his own though.
Click to expand...
I certainly would not do it because of the danger to others. I may if the only danger was to myself. But I refuse to put others in danger for any point of mine.

There is a measure of disregard.
 
Damocles said:
I certainly would not do it because of the danger to others. I may if the only danger was to myself. But I refuse to put others in danger for any point of mine.

There is a measure of disregard.
Click to expand...

Warren makes an excellent point about the danger of such a depiction and I ask again, what possible value could there be in this almost infantile expression.

I don't doubt his right to paint such a picture, but just because you could, doesn't mean you should.

Not only is there no bravery in painting such a picture then running to the police and the media to protect you, there also isn't much intelligence in doing so.

There have been two weeks of angry protests from Pakistan, Iran, Palestine, Egypt, and Afghanistan over this idiocy and the small minor newspaper that printed it has gotten bomb threats.

On August 19, 2007, the Swedish Örebro-based newspaper "Nerikes Allehanda" published a sketch by artist Lars Vilks depicting Mohammed as a ”traffic circle dog” together with a text discussing freedom of expression. About a week later, about 60 people from the Islamic Culture Center in Örebro demonstrated against the newspaper after Friday prayer. They claimed that the publication had insulted Islam and Muslims.

On Monday the following week the story had reached Teheran. The Iranian department of foreign affairs called Gunilla von Bahr at the Swedish embassy and criticized the publication because it insulted the prophet. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad claimed the following day that the Zionists were behind the publication: “They don’t want the government of Sweden to have friendly relations with other nations. I am highly suspicious that they are the ones responsible.”

This follows a pattern of conspiracy interpretation of political events used by the Islamic Republic of Iran. Last year for example, the supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, claimed that the Zionists were behind the Mohammad-cartoons in the Danish newspaper Jyllandsposten.

On August 31, yet another demonstration took place in Örebro after Friday prayers. The demonstrators asked for an apology from the newspaper. This time about 300 people participated. The same day major demonstrations against Sweden and the publication took place in Pakistan. In Karachi a doll of the Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt was set on fire. The Swedish flag was burnt at a demonstration in Lahore and slogans like “Down with Sweden” and “Death to Larish [Lars, the artist who made the sketch]” were used.

News of the publication was spread all over the Islamic world. Government representatives in Riyadh, Cairo and Islamabad all condemned it – as did the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC).
Click to expand...
http://www.ict.org.il/apage/17679.php

This wasn't bravery, but an act of sheer stupidity and self-indulgence. In this time of heightened tensions in the Islamic world where they fear they are under constant attack from the aryan world .. and they are .. applauding such ignorance only puts people, including US soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan, at even more peril.

Just because you could doesn't mean you should.
 
I agree about the could and should, will even agree that in a 'free' society, people should consider their actions and others reactions.

The problem to me is that the 'could' is being whittled down and those usually most vocal about trying to protect such freedoms are mostly silent.
 
blackascoal said:
Warren makes an excellent point about the danger of such a depiction and I ask again, what possible value could there be in this almost infantile expression.

I don't doubt his right to paint such a picture, but just because you could, doesn't mean you should.

Not only is there no bravery in painting such a picture then running to the police and the media to protect you, there also isn't much intelligence in doing so.

There have been two weeks of angry protests from Pakistan, Iran, Palestine, Egypt, and Afghanistan over this idiocy and the small minor newspaper that printed it has gotten bomb threats.


http://www.ict.org.il/apage/17679.php

This wasn't bravery, but an act of sheer stupidity and self-indulgence. In this time of heightened tensions in the Islamic world where they fear they are under constant attack from the aryan world .. and they are .. applauding such ignorance only puts people, including US soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan, at even more peril.

Just because you could doesn't mean you should.
Click to expand...

BAC, your whole approach to this issue is intellectually meritless. Any respect for free speech or the right to criticize powerful institutions goes right out the window for you. You frame the danger of criticizing islam as another reason why it shouldn't be criticized, instead of correctly interpreting that as a symptom of the problem which needs to be corrected.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top