Mail vs Richard Dawkins

Big Rob · **Posted:** Sun Feb 19, 2012 11:55 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote:

So, deeply regrettable though the threats were, it wasn't really censorship.

It was an attempt to censor through violence and threat of death though. That is inescapable.

Big Rob · **Posted:** Mon Feb 20, 2012 12:06 am

A good example would be abortion clinics and their staff in the US.

Is it fair that they should face threats of violence from christians when they are going about their legal business?

Tubby Isaacs · **Posted:** Mon Feb 20, 2012 12:13 am

Big Rob wrote:

When Dawkinss uses the term "woolly liberal" he is pointing that some liberals apply inconsistent logic. Why demand that we tolerate intolerance?

Some of the people who supported not printing the cartoons, like Jack Straw, were indeed woolly liberals and talking shit. But Dawkins ignores that the "class" point I've tried to explain wasn't at all woolly liberal stuff. It was based on hard-headed grounds of worrying about the shit Muslims get. And I tried to explain before why it's not that easy for Muslims just to shrug it all off lightly. (It's one reason I think why so many entirely peaceful ones were not happy. It wasn't just "leave our religion alone because it's sacred", they recognised bullying when they saw it)

I keep saying the threats were appalling. My point saying it wasn't "censorship" was that it didn't manage to censor anything. There's not a single thing we don't know about because of those threats.

Tubby Isaacs · **Posted:** Mon Feb 20, 2012 12:14 am

Big Rob wrote:

A good example would be abortion clinics and their staff in the US.

Is it fair that they should face threats of violence from christians when they are going about their legal business?

Of course not. How you get to that from anything I've written, I don't know.

Big Rob · **Posted:** Mon Feb 20, 2012 12:21 am

Tubby Isaacs wrote:

It was based on hard-headed grounds of worrying about the shit Muslims get.

Sure, some muslims get shit because they deserve it.

That said, muslims who go about their own private business and keep their noses out of others have every right to do so without interference. I don't think Dawkins undermines this by pointing out that those muslims who threaten others with violence, in the name of their religion, are the problem here.

Anyone who conflates all muslims into the violent muslim category has issues of their own. If people can't figure this out for themselves then bypassing logic isn't really going to help them.

Big Rob · **Posted:** Mon Feb 20, 2012 12:22 am

Tubby Isaacs wrote:

Big Rob wrote:

A good example would be abortion clinics and their staff in the US.

Is it fair that they should face threats of violence from christians when they are going about their legal business?

Of course not. How you get to that from anything I've written, I don't know.

I didn't quote you when I said that. It was not directed at you. It was just an analogy from Dawkins position.

Tubby Isaacs · **Posted:** Mon Feb 20, 2012 12:27 am

Big Rob wrote:

Tubby Isaacs wrote:

It was based on hard-headed grounds of worrying about the shit Muslims get.

Sure, some muslims get shit because they deserve it.

That said, muslims who go about their own private business and keep their noses out of others have every right to do so without interference. I don't think Dawkins undermines this by pointing out that those muslims who threaten others with violence, in the name of their religion, are the problem here.

Anyone who conflates all muslims into the violent muslim category has issues of their own. If people can't figure this out for themselves then bypassing logic isn't really going to help them.

Dawkins is indeed right to attack those violent Muslims. My point all through this has been he doesn't appreciate there's a bit more to the debate than he allows over the cartoons ie the people in the latter category you identify. They might be thick as shit and nasty by nature but stuff like racist cartoons makes them worse. That's why, though I don't want to stop the cartoons being published, I would be happy if they'd never been.

I don't know where Christopher Hitchens came from there. I hope you mean him, and not Peter anyway.

Gourami · **Joined:** Wed Jul 20, 2011 10:51 pm **Posts:** 2005

Tubby Isaacs wrote:

Gourami wrote:

There is no place for censorship and I think it was an absolute disgrace that the British press didn't print the cartoons to allow the public to make up their own minds. Under the fear of violence people allowed themselves to be censored. By whom? On what grounds?

Well, you said yourself anyone could find them on the internet. So, deeply regrettable though the threats were, it wasn't really censorship.

I don't think you can condemn the British press though- as we both agree, the threat of violence was very real. Are you saying they should have put their staff at risk?

I think censorship can exist without being absolute. There was certainly a wholesale stifling of most mainstream channels of information. Many people do not have internet access, plenty with it might be wary of searching for such controversial material. Millions were essentially denied access to material that was intended for the public domain.

The press? Yes, they could have taken the risk en masse. I think a great many journalists would have been prepared to take the risks.

lord_kobel · **Posted:** Mon Feb 20, 2012 12:34 am

Tubby Isaacs wrote:

Stuff like the cartoons- even without the reaction of the murdering jihad cunts- helps make things shittier for innocent and poor Muslims who already have a relatively shitty life

Huh? How do cartoons do that?

Big Rob · **Posted:** Mon Feb 20, 2012 12:35 am

Tubby Isaacs wrote:

Dawkins is indeed right to attack those violent Muslims. My point all through this has been he doesn't appreciate there's a bit more to the debate than he allows over the cartoons ie the people in the latter category you identify. They might be thick as shit and nasty by nature but stuff like racist cartoons makes them worse. That's why, though I don't want to stop the cartoons being published, I would be happy if they'd never been.

I don't know where Christopher Hitchens came from there. I hope you mean him, and not Peter anyway.

Well someone could draw some cartoons that would offend people who are as thick as shit.

His point was to defend freedom of speech. He doesn't have to take morons, who are also responsible for their own behavior, into account, when he defends the right of the cartoonists to express themselves freely.

Tubby Isaacs · **Posted:** Mon Feb 20, 2012 1:02 am

lord_kobel wrote:

Tubby Isaacs wrote:

Stuff like the cartoons- even without the reaction of the murdering jihad cunts- helps make things shittier for innocent and poor Muslims who already have a relatively shitty life

Huh? How do cartoons do that?

Same as any racism does.

lord_kobel · **Posted:** Mon Feb 20, 2012 1:06 am

But no one was complaining that they were racist.

Tubby Isaacs · **Posted:** Mon Feb 20, 2012 1:11 am

Big Rob wrote:

His point was to defend freedom of speech. He doesn't have to take morons, who are also responsible for their own behavior, into account, when he defends the right of the cartoonists to express themselves freely.

I can't really say it many more time, Rob. I was objecting to "woolly liberals" and that doesn't do justice to some of the arguments that were about.

This is interesting on the paper who published the cartoons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-P ... mmigration

Quote:

The 2004 report on Denmark by the European Network Against Racism (ENAR), an organisation of NGOs funded partly by the European Commission, concluded that the Danish media devoted an excessive proportion of their time to the problems posed by immigrants, and most often Islamic immigrants, while often ignoring the problems that these immigrants face. According to the ENAR report, out of 382 JP articles on immigrants, 212 were negative, a share similar to other Danish newspapers. The ENAR report holds newspapers such as Jyllands-Posten to blame for the rise of the anti-immigrant right-wing in Danish politics.[17]

It's not really just an innocent chap doing cartoons, is it?

Tubby Isaacs · **Posted:** Mon Feb 20, 2012 1:15 am

lord_kobel wrote:

But no one was complaining that they were racist.

That's quite a statement. I was. I expect there was the odd Muslim who's cool about Muhammed but didn't think the chap with the bomb-headdress was very nice. How do you know they were all just upset about "the prophet"?

See the quote in the link above

Quote:

The 2004 report on Denmark by the European Network Against Racism (ENAR), an organisation of NGOs funded partly by the European Commission, concluded that the Danish media devoted an excessive proportion of their time to the problems posed by immigrants, and most often Islamic immigrants, while often ignoring the problems that these immigrants face. According to the ENAR report, out of 382 JP articles on immigrants, 212 were negative, a share similar to other Danish newspapers. The ENAR report holds newspapers such as Jyllands-Posten to blame for the rise of the anti-immigrant right-wing in Danish politics.[17]

Big Rob · **Posted:** Mon Feb 20, 2012 1:20 am

Tubby Isaacs wrote:

I can't really say it many more time, Rob. I was objecting to "woolly liberals" and that doesn't do justice to some of the arguments that were about.

His criticism of "woolly liberals" is accurate. That's my point.

Tubby Isaacs wrote:

Quote:

The 2004 report on Denmark by the European Network Against Racism (ENAR), an organisation of NGOs funded partly by the European Commission, concluded that the Danish media devoted an excessive proportion of their time to the problems posed by immigrants, and most often Islamic immigrants, while often ignoring the problems that these immigrants face. According to the ENAR report, out of 382 JP articles on immigrants, 212 were negative, a share similar to other Danish newspapers. The ENAR report holds newspapers such as Jyllands-Posten to blame for the rise of the anti-immigrant right-wing in Danish politics.[17]

It's not really just an innocent chap doing cartoons, is it?

He is 'really just an innocent chap doing cartoons' if morons take his work the wrong way.

Mail vs Richard Dawkins

Who is online