3 ms·
That's a ridiculous and dangerous argument. We're talking about a group of people threatening violence. Implicit in your concern for said group's feelings is th
by lyudmil 16y ago
That's a ridiculous and dangerous argument. We're talking about a group of people threatening violence. Implicit in your concern for said group's feelings is the assumption that religious motives are sufficient grounds for retaliation. I think that notion is to be resisted.
Let's take the context of Islam away and follow the analogy. Suppose me and a bunch of friends of mine were deeply offended by UML diagrams. I think it's obvious you would not grant me the right to physically retaliate against anyone who drew them. Why is it that you would in this case?
No, violence is justified only in extreme circumstances. There are no victims here and freedom of expression should be upheld. It is almost embarrassing to debate it.
- maxklein 16y agoI'm not concerned about the group that threatens violence. Obviously they should not do this, and the country that they are in makes this against the law. I am saying that South Park should have respected the culture initially enough to not show this. Imagine that you were deeply offended by UML diagrams. If I come into a company you are working at, and then draw a cartoon showing you hand in hand with UML diagrams, then all I am doing is offending you to no gain to myself. Obviously, I do not advocate you should retaliate. But I should never have done this in the first place - out of respect for you.