4 ms·
~1.6B people consider drawing Mohammed to be a blasphemous action. That's not self-defense; that's antagonistic.
by kareemm 16y ago
~1.6B people consider drawing Mohammed to be a blasphemous action. That's not self-defense; that's antagonistic.
- sp332 16y agoAll the people drawing Mohammed have had their lives threatened. I'm not in favor of escalation, but I don't think backing down in response to a threat of this kind sets a good precedent. Edit: I mean, if they had been asked nicely I would totally agree with you. But it must be made clear that threats are not an appropriate way to deal with religious issues.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- tome 16y agoAbsolutely. If they'd asked nicely, and had some sort of non-violent, respectful protest I wouldn't feel the need to respond in any way.
- saikat 16y agoThe problem here is that the "escalation" is not against the people threatening lives. It's a blind escalation in the dumbest sense - just making the antagonistic act affect more people instead of the few guilty people more acutely.
- fgf 16y agoCollective action protects those who do use their free speech. If all western newspapers printed the original cartoons threatening all of them would be impossible. If one guy gets killed for making a movie and a hundred directors makes similar films it is now safe to make those movies again. There is no single person to focus the anger on.
- natch 16y agoSometimes antagonism is called for. Witness the "War of Northern Aggression" (also known as the US Civil War) for an example of antagonism that achieved a good result. Or, if you prefer a peaceful example, Ghandi was very antagonistic, and with good results.
- kareemm 16y agoSure. But what result are you (or Mohammed Doodlers - "MoDoods"?) hoping to achieve? And will antagonizing militant muslims help achieve that goal? Edit: the point is you're antagonizing waaaay more (likely on the order of 1 billion or more) than the people you're trying to, which is counter-productive.