|
Grex > Agora56 > #84: Newspaper in Denmark prints cartoon pics of Mohammed | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 432 responses total. |
marcvh
|
|
response 319 of 432:
|
Feb 17 15:48 UTC 2006 |
Of course proof is required. When you enrolled at Calvin College they
required you to produce evidence that you exist, that you are who you say
you are, and most importantly that you will pay for the services you recieve
there. People expect proof of such things all the time in lots of ways;
they just don't require it in every social situation because it's
considered a bit rude.
"Celebrity you have never met" has a lower standard of proof because it has
a lower standard of mattering. I haven't taken much trouble to verify that
Tom Cruise actually exists because the claims about him are not particulalry
extraordinary (he's just a man) and because it's not important. If it turned
out that there's no such person as Tom Cruise and he's just a CGI effect, it
would not have any meaningful impact on my life. Would it have one on yours?
|
kingjon
|
|
response 320 of 432:
|
Feb 17 20:04 UTC 2006 |
Re #319: A college is an institution. Once you start introducing
impersonal institutions, it confuses matters. Besides, I would consider
all that you mention "demonstration" rather than "proof" -- it would be
possible that all the evidence be counterfeit, say.
You'll notice I didn't say "celebrity," I said "famous person". What I was
trying to get at is "someone who you're likely to meet at most once in a
lifetime, but is nonetheless important." Since I don't consider actors to
be important, I was thinking more on the order of political figures.
|
marcvh
|
|
response 321 of 432:
|
Feb 17 20:26 UTC 2006 |
My dictionary defines "celebrity" as "a famous person", and defines
"demonstration" as "conclusive evidence; proof."
A political figure is more important than an actor, but the claims about
ours are still rather unremarkable. If someone claimed that Donald
Rumsfeld was born on Neptune and can fly, that would be an extraordinary
claim that would produce a lot of skepticsm from me (and, I hope, you as
well.) However, the claim that Donald Rumsfeld was born in Chicago and
can walk is not particularly extraordinary and so I'm willing to accept
it without much scrutiny.
|
tod
|
|
response 322 of 432:
|
Feb 17 20:31 UTC 2006 |
I'm leaning toward Venusian since he seems hellbent on turning Earth into a
similar atmosphere.
|
kingjon
|
|
response 323 of 432:
|
Feb 17 20:33 UTC 2006 |
Re #321:
"Celebrity" for me gives the connotation of glitz, glamour, etc., but no
real substance -- actors are celebrities, but royalty (for example)
usually aren't. "Demonstration" vs. "proof" -- if I've got a computer
program in binary form that takes one number in and outputs another, I
could demonstrate that putting in 5 returns 25, say, by doing so, but that
wouldn't prove anything, while reading the code that produced the binary
would.
|
marcvh
|
|
response 324 of 432:
|
Feb 17 20:45 UTC 2006 |
Do you end your proofs with Q.E.P. instead of Q.E.D. then? Just curious.
So, would you be skeptical of claims that Donald Rumsfeld was born on
Neptune? If someone showed you a birth certificate that said "Neptune"
on it, would that allay your doubts?
|
kingjon
|
|
response 325 of 432:
|
Feb 17 22:25 UTC 2006 |
#324: All right, all right ... a proof by the laws of logic is a form of a
demonstration. "Proofs" is a subset of "demonstrations". Mostly I end my proofs
with the three dots, if I do anything. :)
Believing that he was born on Neptune would depend on a) how he answered the
question and b) how reliable the source of that rumor had been in the past. If
it was "is from Neptune and is able to fly," if I saw him flying I'd probably
believe the former half.
|
marcvh
|
|
response 326 of 432:
|
Feb 17 23:18 UTC 2006 |
What if two equally-trustworthy sources each presented you with a birth
certificate, one that said Chicago and one that said Neptune? Would you
suppose that either possibility was equally likely?
|
richard
|
|
response 327 of 432:
|
Feb 19 05:03 UTC 2006 |
getting back to the issue of the cartoons, the situation is getting
worse. from news reports at cnn.com:
[b]Protests against cartoons of Islam's Prophet Mohammed continued on
three continents Saturday. Sixteen people were killed and 11 churches
were burned in Nigeria. An angry but peaceful protest drew more than
15,000 people to Trafalgar Square, central London. And in Pakistan, two
leaders of a religious group were arrested after the government banned
a march on the capital, Islamabad, scheduled for Sunday. [/b]
Also another story says that a cleric in Pakistan has placed a $1
million dollar bounty on the head of the cartoonist who drew the
drawings.
|
marcvh
|
|
response 328 of 432:
|
Feb 19 05:13 UTC 2006 |
I wonder what he'll do when he finds out there wasn't just one
cartoonist involved...
|
mcnally
|
|
response 329 of 432:
|
Feb 19 07:08 UTC 2006 |
I wonder if he's actually got a million dollars..
|
keesan
|
|
response 330 of 432:
|
Feb 19 14:53 UTC 2006 |
Has any war started for a stranger reason?
|
marcvh
|
|
response 331 of 432:
|
Feb 19 17:39 UTC 2006 |
The War of Jenkin's Ear comes to mind...
|
cross
|
|
response 332 of 432:
|
Feb 19 18:57 UTC 2006 |
This response has been erased.
|
crimson
|
|
response 333 of 432:
|
Feb 19 18:59 UTC 2006 |
Re #332: Actually (according to legend) it was started because Paris didn't
refuse to take sides in a dispute between three goddesses.
|
cross
|
|
response 334 of 432:
|
Feb 19 19:06 UTC 2006 |
This response has been erased.
|
richard
|
|
response 335 of 432:
|
Feb 19 23:56 UTC 2006 |
re #328 that was my typo, of course he knows there are three
cartoonists, they have been carrying around posters with their pictures.
They even had a muslim protestor interviewed on cnn who said:
"one drop of muslim blood is worth all the blood in the world. You
insult the Prophet, and you will pay"
This isn't about those cartoons, those cartoons are flashpoints to
rally the faithful, just like those false reports that U.S. soldiers
flushed a Koran down the toilet. The real issue is the U.S invasion of
Iraq, which the radical element in the muslim world equates to a holy
war. They will seize on any issue, even cartoons of the Prophet, that
incites the outrage they want against the U.S. Its ironic that the
Danish are taking the heat for this, because while the cartoonists were
from Denmark, the rage and wrath is against the U.S.
This is further proof that the U.S. invasion of Iraq was a HUGE
mistake, and the mistake only gets worse over time. We didn't solve
anything by invading, and the world is not, repeat NOT, safer now than
it was before. It is far more dangerous, and we are closer to a holy
war, with tens of millions of muslims thinking we are the holy enemy of
the Prophet, than at any time in recent history.
|
richard
|
|
response 336 of 432:
|
Feb 20 00:09 UTC 2006 |
newspapers and web sites around the world are re-printing those
cartoons to show solidarity with the cartoonists and to show support
for the idea of free speech.
Since Grex stands for free speech, I think Grex should re-post those
cartoons on its front web page. Grex has taken stands before, it has
or had the blue ribbon on its page. For every site that is attacked
for posting the cartoons, there must be ten others who post them. Grex
must post these cartoons.
|
cross
|
|
response 337 of 432:
|
Feb 20 01:08 UTC 2006 |
This response has been erased.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 338 of 432:
|
Feb 20 01:57 UTC 2006 |
Not for a while, anyway.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 339 of 432:
|
Feb 20 02:48 UTC 2006 |
re #335:
> This isn't about those cartoons, those cartoons are flashpoints to
> rally the faithful, just like those false reports that U.S. soldiers
> flushed a Koran down the toilet. The real issue is the U.S invasion of
> Iraq, which the radical element in the muslim world equates to a holy
> war.
That's a pretty sweeping claim to be offered with no supporting evidence.
> They will seize on any issue, even cartoons of the Prophet, that
> incites the outrage they want against the U.S. Its ironic that the
> Danish are taking the heat for this, because while the cartoonists were
> from Denmark, the rage and wrath is against the U.S.
Actually, "their" outrage over this issue seems to be largely directed at
Europe and (as always) Israel.
> This is further proof that the U.S. invasion of Iraq was a HUGE
> mistake, and the mistake only gets worse over time. We didn't solve
> anything by invading, and the world is not, repeat NOT, safer now than
> it was before. It is far more dangerous, and we are closer to a holy
> war, with tens of millions of muslims thinking we are the holy enemy of
> the Prophet, than at any time in recent history.
Frankly if the ordinary people in the Muslim world persist in insisting
that no depiction or criticism of their prophet can be permitted and
keep trying to enforce their desire with death threats, riots, and violence
against people who are not even parties to the dispute then I AM their
enemy.
Contrast the behavior across much of the Muslim world with the reaction
of Jews when Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinajad announced that he
was "retaliating" for the cartoons by soliciting anti-Semitic cartoons
to run in Iranian and Arab newspapers. The strongest reaction so far
has been civil criticism of Ahmedinajad and one Israeli publisher has
proposed his own anti-Semitic cartoon contest, exhorting Jews to submit
their own creations and not let themselves be bested by the Iranians.
|
keesan
|
|
response 340 of 432:
|
Feb 20 03:32 UTC 2006 |
Richard, don't you have a website where you can post graphics?
|
other
|
|
response 341 of 432:
|
Feb 20 06:12 UTC 2006 |
Hey Richard, if you think Grex should post those images then propose a
member vote on it.
For that matter, WHENEVER you feel inclined to post that Grex should do
something, just propose a member vote. I have little doubt that you
will save yourself a lot of time, energy and frustration by skipping all
the derision and rationalization cycles your suggestions seem to
generate.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 342 of 432:
|
Feb 20 06:53 UTC 2006 |
I've been wondering if this Muslim firestorm over these cartoons would
have occurred if the cartoons had been about Muslim terrorists, rather
than about Mohammed. Mohammed is, in fact, not a good target for
cartooning. He lived a long time ago (presumably) and started a new
religion, and then he died. He really isn't much of a target as it is the
living Muslims that are responsible for anything in the Muslim world that
can be the butt of cartoons. Cartoons about irrational Muslim behavior
would be more relevant to current events, as well as better based on
facts.
|
cross
|
|
response 343 of 432:
|
Feb 20 06:58 UTC 2006 |
This response has been erased.
|