Here's the thing too: it's okay to be p*ssed off at something (like your national flag being destroyed or your religion being the butt of all jokes) but what i don't think is okay is to send death threats because of it! To me, that's something different altogether - why do you have to kill someone just because they displease you? How barbaric is that?? Humanity should have left that in the caves thousands of years ago.
Also, what is the difference between that and gang-wars where opposing gangs stab each other to death because they don't like each other? When that happens we arrest the culprits. When extreme Muslims threaten to kill others we pander to their threats rather than do something to prevent them carrying out their threats - crazy!
I'm not usually into conspiracy theories. There is one that says that the moderate Muslims who do not condemn the extremists are merely waiting for the day when Muslims take over the world (either via numbers or force) and this is why they do not speak out against them. I am not sure i buy this, though as more and more incidents happen and the moderates stay more and more silent, i can't help but think there must be a reason for all this...
...afterall, would we dare stay silent over white-supremist thugs? I think the Muslim world will find that we in fact don't!
Backing down to please Muslim extremists = appeasement.
1938 - Neville Chamberlain steps off a plane from Germany waiving a piece of paper, "Peace in our time!" he cries after following his policy of appeasement with discussions with German Head of State, Adolf Hitler
Originally Posted by Ricky "Don't give Comedy Central shit about doing the responsible thing. "
Is it really the responsible thing though? It sets a president that if you don't want something to happen you can just threaten to kill the people doing it and it will stop. Also, this might cause hatred to peaceful Muslims who had no part in this.
Also
Ben Franklin: "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."
When America was just a bunch of untaxed colonists full of freeloaders, Ben Franklin was BFF with the royal crown. He was pro-Stamp Act, up to the point where his home was threatened to be burned down. You know what he did then? "Screw England, I hear Massachusetts wants independence and that sounds like a super idea!" So, he was threatened and he appeased the jack masses who were threatening him. That doesn't sound familiar at all!
Is it really the responsible thing to do? If you had the choice, what would you have done? Consider the effects of your decision. If you had aired it uncensored as Parker and Stone intended, here's what would have happened:
Parker and Stone would probably be dead right now, and it would be your fault.
South Park would be over, and it would be your fault.
Any resulting riots, and thus potentially more lives, would be your fault.
Even if you're some insensitive asshole who doesn't care about human lives, you're losing your company (Comedy Central/Viacom) a multimillion dollar property.
Originally Posted by aphant
Parker and Stone would probably be dead right now, and it would be your fault.
South Park would be over, and it would be your fault.
Any resulting riots, and thus potentially more lives, would be your fault.
No, it would be the fault of the people who killed them. It's the governments job to protect us from these people and we should not be at this point where we fear for other peoples lives and thus censor ourselves. I do see your point of view but it was a risk the creators were heroically willing to take, and we should not look down on them for doing it.
Originally Posted by Marko Backing down to please Muslim extremists = appeasement.
1938 - Neville Chamberlain steps off a plane from Germany waiving a piece of paper, "Peace in our time!" he cries after following his policy of appeasement with discussions with German Head of State, Adolf Hitler
1939 - World War 2
Hey, didn't Neville Chamberlain also improve factory conditions for England? I hear improved conditions helped pump out war machines. Oh, and didn't his popularity go UP after he gave Hitler more land? Pretty sure the idea was "we're doing this so Hitler won't go to war" because England didn't have the capability to go to war at the time. Not like it would have mattered, Hitler would have taken that territory sooner or later.
You're making an example out of him and he had higher approval ratings at the time than Bush did or Obama has now. Think about that for a second; Chamberlain, who you're trying to paint as an appeasing dumbass, had a higher approval rating than that of George Bush.
My point was that appeasement doesn't stop war or satisfy anyone long-term. At the time it was the right way to go (Britain wasn't geared up for war in 1938 ) though Chamberlain clearly didn't fully buy into his own appeasement policy - Britain, even though at peace with Germany after the Munich agreement, were still re-arming. Quote from Chamberlain;
"[I]t would be madness for the country to stop rearming until we were convinced that other countries would act in the same way. For the time being, therefore, we should relax no particle of effort until our deficiencies had been made good."
I wasn't trying to paint Chamberlain as an "appeasing dumbass" or make "an example out of him" - he was a great politician and a great man who realised his own limits and did everything he could to ensure Britain's freedom, even as far as recommending Churchill to the King once he stepped down as PM. His peace-time policies were fantastic and his popularity amongst the British public is something to be proud of.
However, none of this has anything to do with my point on appeasement. It was an example.
Originally Posted by aphant
Parker and Stone would probably be dead right now, and it would be your fault.
South Park would be over, and it would be your fault.
Any resulting riots, and thus potentially more lives, would be your fault.
No, it would be the fault of the people who killed them. It's the governments job to protect us from these people and we should not be at this point where we fear for other peoples lives and thus censor ourselves. I do see your point of view but it was a risk the creators were heroically willing to take, and we should not look down on them for doing it.
I'm not looking down on the creators for producing what they want to produce. Their standpoint is basically that taboos and censorship are stupid. Having a belief and standing up for it isn't heroic. I'm not trying to praise Comedy Central for what they did either. I'm just trying to get you to think about the situation with a more broad perspective than what can be boiled down to, "this is bullshit!"
Originally Posted by Watermelon876 Oh, Muslims aren't allowed to depict Muhhamud because that would be worshipping the man rather than God. Or something similar.
True. Also jews are not allowed to eat pork. The difference is that jews aren't making death threats to the rest of the world for eating pork.
- Ok, you must admit that was the most creative cussing this site have ever seen -
Advertisement
Post Reply
Edited by Marko
