polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 15^th, 2014 at 9:55am:


I see a massive contradiction that a 'religion of peace' is inclined to ban a movie to avoid riots and bloodshed.

there is no peace in riots and bloodshed, one should allow freedom of speech and movies.
there should be no concern over a riot from a religion of any kind.

freediver wrote on Mar 15^th, 2014 at 1:51pm:


That sounds a good idea too. Can I choose both?

freediver wrote on Mar 15^th, 2014 at 1:51pm:


Is that why they do it?

The Passion was screened right across the muslim world, without any incident that I know about. Lots of other "blasphemous" movies about prophets and religion have been screened.

As to the broader topic of censorship, I really don't think the question of whether to screen or not screen Hollywood movies at cinemas is a serious concern. Australia censors some movies and video games as well. The world is not going to stop because some arabs are not allowed to watch a Hollywood movie.

freediver wrote on Mar 15^th, 2014 at 7:25pm:


It is rather strange that you initiate this discussion by demanding that something that you say prevents a riot, be condemned.

Now it seems from your last post that the issue you are really concerned about is a culture that blasphemers should be killed. If, as you claim, the censorship was about avoiding violence, then it doesn't really make sense to condemn it. Objectively, it should be commended.

So I go back to the point that you didn't address: if an instance of censorship can prevent violence, then its responsible to do it in that instance. But that is *NOT* necessarily giving in-principle support for censorship. Doing this should not in any way mean you can't be tough on rioting either. Its not an either-or.

Quote:


I read the opening post, and thought I'd cut straight to it.

Quote:


I think freedom of speech is important, regardless of your method of suppressing it. I am also concerned about Muslims killing people. It's not an either/or thing. You may even find there are other aspects of Islam I take issue with.

Quote:


Muslims seem to have this whole good Muslim/bad Muslim routine down pat. We have to calm an rationally dismantle human rights in case the bad Muslims go on another violent rampage.

Quote:


My point is that that is not what it actually achieves. In reality, it causes violence by rewarding it. Does Islam command you to be so shortsighted?

Quote:


You got me there. Thanks for letting me know what I think.

Quote:


I would. As I keep trying to explain, the "avoidance of violence" is an illusion promoted by the "good Muslims". In reality, it causes violence. If you want to change your mind now that I have pointed this out, go ahead.

Quote:


I know. You only support it because otherwise the "bad Muslims" will go on another violent rampage. You would never actually say it that way. It always comes with an excuse. That's why I offered you the excuse upfront. I got you to say in one post what took a dozen pages last time.

freediver wrote on Mar 16^th, 2014 at 8:48am:


Its not what you think, its how you framed it. You specifically asked me to choose between censorship and rioting. I even got you to confirm this.

It is not unreasonable to choose censorship in this case, and it doesn't make me a champion for censorship.

freediver wrote on Mar 16^th, 2014 at 8:48am:


Um no, I am saying it exactly that way. I will choose censorship over violence - whether its by 'bad muslims' or anyone else. I really don't know what you are trying to get at.

No doubt there will be a new "gotcha" thread on this very soon. But don't bother putting it in the islam forum.

Quote:


I give you permission to change your mind now that the cunning trick has been revealed.

Quote:


I say it every single post, only for you to pretend it isn't there. Do I need to get out the crayons for you?

Quote:


Yes, we have seen how you feel about the whole freedom of speech thing. Pretty cunning of me eh?