Bravely Drawing Mohammed...

[Litmus]

You can 'go for' whatever you want. I can tell you to fuck off and do what I want, also.

You can do what you want of course. Pussing out and pretending your not making arguments you are is what you chose to do. Carpe diem, good friend.

I gotta hand it to you, if you're gonna make a stupid post you might as well go balls to the wall and you certainly accomplished it here.

Kicking your ass is easy.

 

[blackascoal]

I can tell the similarities in coersion, that you cannot is interesting.

Amazingly, I started this all as tongue in cheek... "Bravely Drawing Mohammed"... It was dry sarcasm. It has been fun arguing this position though. You always learn more when you argue a position that isn't yours to begin with.

Stragely I can see bravery in even attackers flying planes into buildings. I can see it from somebody standing up to coersion of any kind. It would be brave of the US to reject all those special protections that take from us our civil liberties. Even those of free speech. The "it's just dumb" argument doesn't change that it is a practice in free speech, that you don't like the message doesn't change it either. Nor does it take away from the bravery inherent in a stance against forced coersion.

Because you see "bravery" in people doing dumb ass things doesn't make it brave and it doesn't make it any less intelligent.

One could get killed selling drugs .. according to your illogic, that's a brave thing to do.

One could get killed holding up a bank, attempting to rape a woman, or breaking into a home while someone is there .. perhaps we should erect statues in their name for the bravery they exhibited.

Your argument is monumentally silly .. but I respect your right to be monumentally silly my brother.

 

[Litmus]

Because you see "bravery" in people doing dumb ass things doesn't make it brave and it doesn't make it any less intelligent.

One could get killed selling drugs .. according to your illogic, that's a brave thing to do.

One could get killed holding up a bank, attempting to rape a woman, or breaking into a home while someone is there .. perhaps we should erect statues in their name for the bravery they exhibited.

Your argument is monumentally silly .. but I respect your right to be monumentally silly my brother.

You don't get it, stooge. What makes bravery brave is the principle behind it. There's a point here you refuse to acknowledge. Just like the Rosa incident was not about seating, this is not about one specific piece of art, which is most likely marginal, though I haven't seen it. This is about the RIGHT to criticize institutions of any kind, or ideas of any kind. Quit emulating hitler.

 

[Litmus]

BAC, do you support his legal right to publish this art, or present it to the public through usual modes?

 

[blackascoal]

Exactly. Regardless of the consequences of his actions it takes courage to stand against threats to your life. That he chose this stance on this particular thing shows both a disregard of others as well as a personal bravery. I do not say he is a hero, merely courageous.

But he runs to the police and the media to protect him from his "brave" act.

Incredibly stupid depiction of "brave"

They are no longer rioting for it, they did riot over it but they haven't for quite some time. Pretty much all the danger in this action currently is his.

How do you fucking know that?

You don't, and excuse me but your ass isn't in the line of fire.

Just because the riots have died down does not in any way, shape, or form mean that the anger has.

 

[blackascoal]

BAC, do you support his legal right to publish this art, or present it to the public through usual modes?

Fuck off asswipe

 

[Litmus]

But he runs to the police and the media to protect him from his "brave" act.

Incredibly stupid depiction of "brave"



How do you fucking know that?

You don't, and excuse me but your ass isn't in the line of fire.

Just because the riots have died down does not in any way, shape, or form mean that the anger has.

Well of course, if he protected himself, that would be a vigilante action, wouldn't it?

Fuck their anger. In WESTERN societies, you do not have the right for your god to never be insulted by others. Aren't you a secularist? Have you gone fucking retarded? You're playing into the hands of theocrats.

 

[Damocles]

Because you see "bravery" in people doing dumb ass things doesn't make it brave and it doesn't make it any less intelligent.

One could get killed selling drugs .. according to your illogic, that's a brave thing to do.

One could get killed holding up a bank, attempting to rape a woman, or breaking into a home while someone is there .. perhaps we should erect statues in their name for the bravery they exhibited.

Your argument is monumentally silly .. but I respect your right to be monumentally silly my brother.

Actually depending on when and where it could be a brave thing to do. The idea that doing something brave also means doing something "right" is where you and I seem at odds.

That the drawing is foolish, I agree. That he is "brave" for putting his life on the line for his foolishness I can see as brave. Just as I could see bravery in what those insects did on 9/11.

 

[Damocles]

But he runs to the police and the media to protect him from his "brave" act.

Incredibly stupid depiction of "brave"

According to the story he checked his own vehicle for bombs before driving off, if the police are "protecting" him they are doing a horrible job.

How do you fucking know that?

You don't, and excuse me but your ass isn't in the line of fire.

Just because the riots have died down does not in any way, shape, or form mean that the anger has.

When did I say the anger had died down? I think it is more focused, the danger in his action now, is directed at him. Just as you can express an opinion that you think the whole world is now in danger for this depiction, I too can express an alternate opinion based on the actual occurences where at first there was undirected anger, misplaced and unfocused, I can now see a difference based on their actions.

If we can no longer express opinions based on the actions and perceived motivations of others we can no longer work to convict people for crime, unless they are caught red-handed, we can't prosecute for "hate crimes" because that is based on perceived motivation...

It gets to a point where I have to ignore the world around me and pretend only "professionals" can give me an opinion on anything, and that is truly preposterous and a bow to the authority that I will never even plan on making.

 

[Litmus]

According to the story he checked his own vehicle for bombs before driving off, if the police are "protecting" him they are doing a horrible job.



When did I say the anger had died down? I think it is more focused, the danger in his action now, is directed at him. Just as you can express an opinion that you think the whole world is now in danger for this depiction, I too can express an alternate opinion based on the actual occurences where at first there was undirected anger, misplaced and unfocused, I can now see a difference based on their actions.

If we can no longer express opinions based on the actions and perceived motivations of others we can no longer work to convict people for crime, unless they are caught red-handed, we can't prosecute for "hate crimes" because that is based on perceived motivation...

It gets to a point where I have to ignore the world around me and pretend only "professionals" can give me an opinion on anything, and that is truly preposterous and a bow to the authority that I will never even plan on making.

Damo's rockin the mic!

 

[blackascoal]

According to the story he checked his own vehicle for bombs before driving off, if the police are "protecting" him they are doing a horrible job.

When did I say the anger had died down? I think it is more focused, the danger in his action now, is directed at him. Just as you can express an opinion that you think the whole world is now in danger for this depiction, I too can express an alternate opinion based on the actual occurences where at first there was undirected anger, misplaced and unfocused, I can now see a difference based on their actions.

If we can no longer express opinions based on the actions and perceived motivations of others we can no longer work to convict people for crime, unless they are caught red-handed, we can't prosecute for "hate crimes" because that is based on perceived motivation...

It gets to a point where I have to ignore the world around me and pretend only "professionals" can give me an opinion on anything, and that is truly preposterous and a bow to the authority that I will never even plan on making.

We simply have a difference of perspectives on what is brave. I don't see bravery where there is personal gain. I define bravery as putting self and peril aside and doing something to benefit a greater good without the benefit or expectation of gain. What this guy did does not qualify as brave from my perspective and it is completely different from what Rosa Parks did who did not act alone and was in fact chosen for her mission.

If we looked at motivations honestly and you buy into the theory that 19 hijackers flew planes into buildings, shouldn't we examine who was most motivated to have them do this "brave" act? .. It wasn't Bin Laden.

If we're smart enough to discern motivation, shouldn't we be smart enough to differentiate between what is a brave act and what is a brain-washed act?

If you do something that gets you killed because you were brain-washed into doing it, that doesn't make you brave, it makes you brain-washed. The hijackers, assuming there were hijackers, weren't brave, they were brain-washed .. or better stated, brain-dead.

I believe "bravery" and "courage" require a special distinction that is not defined simply by consequence.

 

[Damocles]

We simply have a difference of perspectives on what is brave. I don't see bravery where there is personal gain. I define bravery as putting self and peril aside and doing something to benefit a greater good without the benefit or expectation of gain. What this guy did does not qualify as brave from my perspective and it is completely different from what Rosa Parks did who did not act alone and was in fact chosen for her mission.

If we looked at motivations honestly and you buy into the theory that 19 hijackers flew planes into buildings, shouldn't we examine who was most motivated to have them do this "brave" act? .. It wasn't Bin Laden.

If we're smart enough to discern motivation, shouldn't we be smart enough to differentiate between what is a brave act and what is a brain-washed act?

If you do something that gets you killed because you were brain-washed into doing it, that doesn't make you brave, it makes you brain-washed. The hijackers, assuming there were hijackers, weren't brave, they were brain-washed .. or better stated, brain-dead.

I believe "bravery" and "courage" require a special distinction that is not defined simply by consequence.

What you call bravery I call "nobility". A person can do a noble and selfless act of bravery, but they can also do a selfish and low act that takes bravery.

Bravery itself has no moral value. One can bravely fight against all odds, even if it is for the wrong cause, and still be brave. But that person would not be acting nobly.

 

[blackascoal]

What you call bravery I call "nobility". A person can do a noble and selfless act of bravery, but they can also do a selfish and low act that takes bravery.

Bravery itself has no moral value. One can bravely fight against all odds, even if it is for the wrong cause, and still be brave. But that person would not be acting nobly.

In my opinion bravery is a noble act, and nobility is what seperates bravery from courage. One may have the courage to step into a cage with lions, or climb ice moutains, or climb into a barrel and launch themselves over the Falls, or bunji jump from the top of a building, but I wouldn't call any of that bravery.

"A person can do a noble and selfless act of bravery, but they can also do a selfish and low act that takes" courage.

It takes some degree of courage to break into someones occupied home, but no one would define that as an act of bravery.

 

[Litmus]

In my opinion bravery is a noble act, and nobility is what seperates bravery from courage. One may have the courage to step into a cage with lions, or climb ice moutains, or climb into a barrel and launch themselves over the Falls, or bunji jump from the top of a building, but I wouldn't call any of that bravery.

"A person can do a noble and selfless act of bravery, but they can also do a selfish and low act that takes" courage.

It takes some degree of courage to break into someones occupied home, but no one would define that as an act of bravery.

But regardless, this action was brave, courageous and noble.

 

[Damocles]

In my opinion bravery is a noble act, and nobility is what seperates bravery from courage. One may have the courage to step into a cage with lions, or climb ice moutains, or climb into a barrel and launch themselves over the Falls, or bunji jump from the top of a building, but I wouldn't call any of that bravery.

"A person can do a noble and selfless act of bravery, but they can also do a selfish and low act that takes" courage.

It takes some degree of courage to break into someones occupied home, but no one would define that as an act of bravery.

I would call it Fortitude.

Fortitude enables us to undergo any pain, peril or danger when prudentially deemed expedient.

Courage and Bravery are not moral values, they are simply the ability to look beyond the fear and do something regardless one can bravely face a lion but it is not alway prudent to do so and thus it doesn't always take fortitude. It takes courage/bravery to fly a plane into a building. But did it take fortitude? I'd say no, as I can see no reason to call it prudent to target innocents...

 

[blackascoal]

I would call it Fortitude.

Fortitude enables us to undergo any pain, peril or danger when prudentially deemed expedient.

Courage and Bravery are not moral values, they are simply the ability to look beyond the fear and do something regardless one can bravely face a lion but it is not alway prudent to do so and thus it doesn't always take fortitude. It takes courage/bravery to fly a plane into a building. But did it take fortitude? I'd say no, as I can see no reason to call it prudent to target innocents...

We can go around in circles with the semantics of how to define the infantile act of this painter, but knocking the stick off Islam's shoulder then running to hide behind the police and the media was nothing but a self-indulgent act.

If he wants to be brave he should take his picture to Afghanistan and hand it to the Taliban, or take that bullshit, that may get others killed, to Iraq, hand it to Sadr and tell him that only he is responsible and Mohammad is a dog..

I'm guessing that he's not "brave" enough to do either.

 

[Litmus]

We can go around in circles with the semantics of how to define the infantile act of this painter, but knocking the stick off Islam's shoulder then running to hide behind the police and the media was nothing but a self-indulgent act.

If he wants to be brave he should take his picture to Afghanistan and hand it to the Taliban, or take that bullshit, that may get others killed, to Iraq, hand it to Sadr and tell him that only he is responsible and Mohammad is a dog..



I'm guessing that he's not "brave" enough to do either.

But you do agree his act should be legal as an expression of free speech, regardless of how infantile you deem the message. Good. It's settled then. Friends?

 

[Litmus]

Of course not! That was laughable and moronic.

This is where authoritarianism of any kind, including religious, will bring you.

What is it when you free speech is silenced so as not to offend a religious group? That's authoritarianism, of the PC kind.

 

[blackascoal]

But you do agree his act should be legal as an expression of free speech, regardless of how infantile you deem the message. Good. It's settled then. Friends?

The question was never whether he could, but whether or not he should .. and does his self-indulgent act constitute an act of bravery.

 

[Litmus]

The question was never whether he could, but whether or not he should .. and does his self-indulgent act constitute an act of bravery.

SO you agree he legally can, and would fight to the death for his right to do it. Good.