Captain Gh3y
Rhinorhondothackasaurus
Talk about generalisations.HotShot said:the main point is the inconsistency of the papers. anything that is gud is deemed australian, while if its bad its labelled arab middle eastern etc.
Students helping students, join us in improving Bored of Studies by donating and supporting future students!
Talk about generalisations.HotShot said:the main point is the inconsistency of the papers. anything that is gud is deemed australian, while if its bad its labelled arab middle eastern etc.
you mean like how plenty of people born outside of Australia are simply counted as Australian without mentioning their origins as well? I mean, if the chess champ has effectivly lived all his life in australia, does taht bug you as much as Russell Crowe, Mel Gibson, or Nicole Kidman being referred to as Australians with no further explanation?HotShot said:the main point is the inconsistency of the papers. anything that is gud is deemed australian, while if its bad its labelled arab middle eastern etc.
I find your post to be arab at best, middle eastern at worst.HotShot said:the main point is the inconsistency of the papers. anything that is gud is deemed australian, while if its bad its labelled arab middle eastern etc.
referring to what? the cartoons in particular?Salima said:It's all a piece of piss if you ask me.
u missed my point, that same chess champ was called an australian, but when he raped a women, he was no labelled as an aussie, but as an arab. Isnt that discrimination?davin said:you mean like how plenty of people born outside of Australia are simply counted as Australian without mentioning their origins as well? I mean, if the chess champ has effectivly lived all his life in australia, does taht bug you as much as Russell Crowe, Mel Gibson, or Nicole Kidman being referred to as Australians with no further explanation?
If it's from the same source, definately.Isnt that discrimination?
um, they were made up examples..........davin said:give a link to the two articles, if possible
and while its something perhaps to look into, i think you're making very large generalisations with little to back it up
Here's what you don't understand. I don't think there's anything wrong with criticising a religion in an intelligent manner. However, there is a difference between criticising and downright insulting. You can criticise Islam without depicting our holiest figure in such an insulting way.Not-That-Bright said:Um ok... Why?
When someone criticises a religion... they are usually criticising some sort of belief or practice which permeates through the religion. There are no permeating beliefs throughout a race, there are no practices which permeate throughout a race... If you criticise a race you are just being racist as there is no substance to your criticisms - practices/beliefs do not go along with race.
Also as MLS pointed out, you can't change your race - You can change your beliefs.
It's just cowardly to mock someone who is no longer alive. They aren't here to defend themselves against any claims made by them, nor is his family.Not-That-Bright said:Well the prophet or someone from his family can then sue the newspaper. However even then I imagine it could be easily argued that muhammed in this sense is not a 'person' but a mythical figure and symbol of the religion of Islam - while there may have been a person, the person was not what was being portrayed in the cartoons.
I don't think the problem was with poor quality research, but simply the fact that he was questioning the holocaust. I think you're right about the rest though.Not-That-Bright said:Well I don't support such laws, however your reference I believe points out the confusion...
This is not an example of those laws in practice... Universities can sack professors whom are doing poor quality research or even fabricating research. Another point to make is that there should be restrictions on freedom of speech when it comes to teachers due to their position.
I think the reason why the protests turned violent wasn't simply over the cartoons but alot of these people have been under years of persecution, occupation etc so it all adds up. Also, I think it has alot to do with crowd mentality and behanviour. People tend to get more violent in a crowd or they try and impress their mates or whatever. I'm not in any way saying that that is a justification for their behaviour, but it is a reason. I think the best thing for Muslims to have done would have been to protest peacefully, request for an apology and boycott the newspaper until they got their apology.Not-That-Bright said:ALL of the protests that I have seen are about violence and call for ends to freedom of speech. If the muslims were simply protesting because they didn't like it and were perhaps asking for an appology I imagine alot of people on this board would be on their side - but they're not. They're asking for the newspaper to be severely punished, they want to hurt the people of denmark (and now europe) and they're going on like a pack of babies that need a good spanking.
The reason why Islam is portrayed close to terrorism is because... well it is. There's no denying that Islam has been hijacked by alot of fundamentalist terrorists whom we all should hate... Does this mean all muslims are evil? No. Does this mean Islam is severely tainted by terrorism? Yes.
Actually I see very little difference, criticism is usually insulting to the person(s) whom it is being directed towards.Here's what you don't understand. I don't think there's anything wrong with criticising a religion in an intelligent manner. However, there is a difference between criticising and downright insulting.
This completely ignores what I said in what you quoted... The fact that a religion is a chosen set of beliefs makes it more open to criticism.The reason I think it's worse to insult somebody's religion is because they themselves chose that religion and agreed to it's scriptures/teachings etc. Therefore, they have a much stronger bond with their religion than they do with their race because they had no choice in their race.
Criticism is rude, it is insulting.But when you insult somebody's religion, it's insulting something which they hold very close to their heart. I'm not saying you can't be critical of the religion, but care should be taken in not being rude and insulting their religion or their God or whatever.
Again... you ignore parts of my post that you even quote.It's just cowardly to mock someone who is no longer alive. They aren't here to defend themselves against any claims made by them, nor is his family.
me said:However even then I imagine it could be easily argued that muhammed in this sense is not a 'person' but a mythical figure and symbol of the religion of Islam - while there may have been a person, the person was not what was being portrayed in the cartoons.
A recent survey done by the BBC asked UK Muslims whether they felt a bomb attack in the UK is justified - 7% of respondents said yes. These are muslims in a country where you would think they would be much more moderate, and in a situation where they would fear to give the answer of 'yes'.I'm guessing only about 30% are hardcore extremists and possibly about 10% would, in reality, have the potential to become terrorists or involved in terrorist activity.
If its because they chose the belief that it can't be attacked, then what about all those of us that have chosen to believe in free speech while that is being attacked?The reason I think it's worse to insult somebody's religion is because they themselves chose that religion and agreed to it's scriptures/teachings etc. Therefore, they have a much stronger bond with their religion than they do with their race because they had no choice in their race. That's not to say racism is ok, racism is just plain foolish. But when you insult somebody's religion, it's insulting something which they hold very close to their heart. I'm not saying you can't be critical of the religion, but care should be taken in not being rude and insulting their religion or their God or whatever.
I wonder if their history books include facts such as muslims working in the nazi regime, along with the grand mufti of jerusalem at the times alliance with hitler.
upshizzle.com/files/mufti_hitler.jpg
and as for the not recognising the state of israel thing, we all know those greedy little jews deserve what they get... i mean just look at ALL that land they are occupying!
upshizzle.com/files/jewish_occupation.jpg
A recent survey done by the BBC asked UK Muslims whether they felt a bomb attack in the UK is justified - 7% of respondents said yes. These are muslims in a country where you would think they would be much more moderate, and in a situation where they would fear to give the answer of 'yes'.
I haven't seen too many studies on how many muslims support suicide bombings - but I'm afraid most signs i've seen so far show the number is probably high.
its not a matter of would christians do the same. Christians already showed that they can dislike sometihng and be civilized about it. there have been many things done about jesus and the virgin mary , that christians if they watned to , could start a riot for.lewdogs said:ask urselfs would christians do this? i dont know just wondering haha