4 ms·
Absolutely outrageous. There was no depiction. They merely suggested that Mohammed was inside the bear costume, this too is ridiculous and the point of this asp
by asnyder 17y ago
Absolutely outrageous. There was no depiction. They merely suggested that Mohammed was inside the bear costume, this too is ridiculous and the point of this aspect of the episode.
1. It's a cartoon, there is no Mohammed. If I draw a stick figure and suggest it's Mohammed it's unreasonable to suggest that this is a depiction of Mohammed, it's a stick figure.
2. It's a bear costume, just because someone says Mohammed is on the inside no way depicts Mohammed. The only thing that suggests this is dialog, if one mutes the audio there's no more suggestion.
3. It's likely that in the rendering program there is in fact nothing inside the costume, so all this fuss is over the imaginary depiction of Mohammed.
So crazy...
- ajju 17y agoWell, even if there was a depiction, so what? The issue is crazies threatening to kill someone over a cartoon. What the cartoon depicted or did not depict is moot.
- mapleoin 17y ago3. It's likely that in the rendering program there is in fact nothing inside the costume, so all this fuss is over the imaginary depiction of Mohammed. Wait. So you mean you think there's a possibility that they drew Mohammed under that 2D bear costume and that layer of pixels is the only thing preventing us from seeing the Prophet?
- jheriko 17y agoI think you misunderstand depiction - depiction with words is depiction all the same. There is no question that they depicted Mohammed - although I agree that the fuss is completely disproportionate.
- PG-13 17y agoThey already had an actual depiction of Mohammed several seasons ago. His full body and face were shown. He was a superhero. Nobody cared. If they depicted Mohammed now, nobody would come after them. The networks won't allow it now. People seem to forget that a big part of the controversy surrounding the cartoons in Denmark wasn't just that Mohammed was portrayed, but that he was portrayed as a terrorist and performing lewd acts.
- gizmomagico 17y agoPeople seem to forget that a big part of the controversy surrounding the cartoons in Denmark wasn't just that Mohammed was portrayed, but that he was portrayed as a terrorist and performing lewd acts. Really? Were these the cartoons portraying Muhammad as a terrorist and performing lewd acts: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoo... ? From the article: This led to protests across the Muslim world, some of which escalated into violence with police firing on the crowds (resulting in a total of more than 100 deaths),[1] including setting fire to the Danish Embassies in Syria, Lebanon and Iran, storming European buildings, and desecrating the Danish, Dutch, Norwegian, French and German flags in Gaza City. - Now, how fucking insane do people have to be, to have that kind of reaction to a fucking cartoon, even if it actually had been "lewd"?