5 ms·

> misrepresents your views by making up something that you didn't say and putting your name on it then you should be able to have a say about whether or not tha

by waps 13y ago

> misrepresents your views by making up something that you didn't say and putting your name on it then you should be able to have a say about whether or not that thing is disseminated around the world Really ? We're talking about actors here. Isn't this akin to claiming Christian Bale's political views have been "misrepresented" as vigilantism ? Seriously. These are actors. Nobody in their right mind assumes they espouse the views they do on screen. I find it weird that people are conflating different religions/ideologies here and attempting to apply one to the other, and guess what ? 1) people are angry about the result 2) it doesn't work, doesn't produce consistent thinking Let's get real here : a) it is an essential part of islam, to hunt down and execute people who criticize islam. This should not be looked at as exceptional at all, in fact it is quite normal for religions and ideologies to do this. It is the normal case for ideologies to hunt down and punish/kill criticism. Yes, Christianity doesn't do so, and obviously America's own brand of democracy doesn't either (of course, in both cases you can still give examples where people were executed for their opinions. The point is, it is not done as a matter of course, the way it is done in islamic nations, or china) b) The idea of separating the person from their political (and business) activities the way it is done in the modern western world, like you're doing, sounds absurd to anyone outside of said western world. In most societies, whether muslim, chinese, black african ideologies, the roman empire, ... and even what we know about others like aztec civilization there is absolutely zero difference between the person, the job, and the political activities. So yes, in all those civilizations actors routinely get punished if they follow wrong ideologies. c) the idea that no ideology is "wrong" (or rather, that there is more than one acceptable ideology at all) is very new, and fake. Obviously what people really mean is that as long as you consider our Christianity-derived law as the primary ideology, you can call yourself whatever the fuck you want. What is considered "disgusting", "extremist", "evil" and extremely illegal however, is applying even tiny amounts of sharia, or for another example communism in cases where it would violate our normal law. This is of course the whole point of those ideologies. What people mean when they say communism is NOT voluntary sharing of capital. What people mean when they say islam is NOT partially applying muslim food laws.

onion2k 13y ago
Nobody in their right mind assumes they espouse the views they do on screen. No one assumes that the actor believes the same thing as the character, but they will, quite reasonably in my opinion, assume that the actor agreed to act in the film with the dialogue they are hearing. Very few actors would sign on to a project where they're being filmed knowing nothing at all of the audio that is going to be added later. That's essentially what happened here. The director lied to them. It's not fair to deny them the opportunity to disassociate themselves from the film if that happens.
- waps 13y ago
  I feel like I'm repeating the obvious here : these are actors. Sorry to repeat myself, but I get the distinct impression it's not getting through. > No one assumes that the actor believes the same thing as the character, but they will, quite reasonably in my opinion, assume that the actor agreed to act in the film with the dialogue they are hearing. Everyone assumes that.
polymatter 13y ago
"a) it is an essential part of islam, to hunt down and execute people who criticize islam ... Christianity doesn't do so" There are Five Pillars to Islam[1]. None of which explicitly call for genocide. The early history of Islam was violent. But so too was the early history of Christianity. The past was extraordinarily violent. That there are some people who profess to be advancing Islam by killing in no way makes it an essential part of Islam. In the same way, the people who profess to be advancing Christianity and choose to do so by killing too[2] hardly makes it an essential part of Christianity. Islam has Sharia law. Christianity has Leviticus. Christians are still debating how much crazy stuff from Leviticus they can foist into a modern society and I have no doubt Muslims try to do the same with Sharia. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Pillars_of_Islam http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Pillars_of_Islam [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism
- waps 13y ago
  Your comment makes no sense at all. First : who said anything about genocide ? Plus what have "the five pillars" or any short summary to do with what the whole does or does not do. I just read the five principles of testing cars, none of them have anything to do with whether the car actually fucking drives. Google "asma bint marwan", read the first link, then judge for yourself if islam wants to see it's critics killed. Second, check what the law actually says in theory. Thirdly check what laws are applied in muslim states, including "modern" ones like morocco or turkey. Then making the same judgement about Christianity is simple. Read the New Testament, decide for yourself what it says about blasphemy. Second check canon law. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02595a.htm http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02595a.htm . The worst punishment in Christianity for anything is exile (with the exception of murder). Thirdly check what is actually practiced in Christian countries. Frankly if you think these 2 are at all comparable you need your head examined. Or else you're one of those "the US is as bad as the taliban, because during a war once a soldier did X and was only decades later convicted for it" morons. As to whether islam calls for genocide, that is equally obvious. Read quran, chapter 9 verse 11. That is a blatant call for genocide, plain and direct. Granted, it is very hard to determine who should be killing who, when, where and why, but does that really matter ? You can have long tedious discussions about who/when/where. But that it calls for muslims to commit genocide on some group is not something any sane person can deny.

by waps 13y ago

onion2k 13y ago

Nobody in their right mind assumes they espouse the views they do on screen. No one assumes that the actor believes the same thing as the character, but they will, quite reasonably in my opinion, assume that the actor agreed to act in the film with the dialogue they are hearing. Very few actors would sign on to a project where they're being filmed knowing nothing at all of the audio that is going to be added later. That's essentially what happened here. The director lied to them. It's not fair to deny them the opportunity to disassociate themselves from the film if that happens.

waps 13y ago
I feel like I'm repeating the obvious here : these are actors. Sorry to repeat myself, but I get the distinct impression it's not getting through. > No one assumes that the actor believes the same thing as the character, but they will, quite reasonably in my opinion, assume that the actor agreed to act in the film with the dialogue they are hearing. Everyone assumes that.

polymatter 13y ago

"a) it is an essential part of islam, to hunt down and execute people who criticize islam ... Christianity doesn't do so" There are Five Pillars to Islam[1]. None of which explicitly call for genocide. The early history of Islam was violent. But so too was the early history of Christianity. The past was extraordinarily violent. That there are some people who profess to be advancing Islam by killing in no way makes it an essential part of Islam. In the same way, the people who profess to be advancing Christianity and choose to do so by killing too[2] hardly makes it an essential part of Christianity. Islam has Sharia law. Christianity has Leviticus. Christians are still debating how much crazy stuff from Leviticus they can foist into a modern society and I have no doubt Muslims try to do the same with Sharia. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Pillars_of_Islam http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Pillars_of_Islam [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism

waps 13y ago
Your comment makes no sense at all. First : who said anything about genocide ? Plus what have "the five pillars" or any short summary to do with what the whole does or does not do. I just read the five principles of testing cars, none of them have anything to do with whether the car actually fucking drives. Google "asma bint marwan", read the first link, then judge for yourself if islam wants to see it's critics killed. Second, check what the law actually says in theory. Thirdly check what laws are applied in muslim states, including "modern" ones like morocco or turkey. Then making the same judgement about Christianity is simple. Read the New Testament, decide for yourself what it says about blasphemy. Second check canon law. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02595a.htm http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02595a.htm . The worst punishment in Christianity for anything is exile (with the exception of murder). Thirdly check what is actually practiced in Christian countries. Frankly if you think these 2 are at all comparable you need your head examined. Or else you're one of those "the US is as bad as the taliban, because during a war once a soldier did X and was only decades later convicted for it" morons. As to whether islam calls for genocide, that is equally obvious. Read quran, chapter 9 verse 11. That is a blatant call for genocide, plain and direct. Granted, it is very hard to determine who should be killing who, when, where and why, but does that really matter ? You can have long tedious discussions about who/when/where. But that it calls for muslims to commit genocide on some group is not something any sane person can deny.