Iran trys to get holland to ban dutch mp's film about the "violence provoking koran"

[(Q)]

You cannot compare a religious belief to "Muslims are bad, go kill them"

I have no idea what you're talking about.

[Michael]

Both, if they are used to simply degrade the view of others.

When Mohammad said to his followers the polytheistic Arab's beleif system was corrupted and wrong - was this a degradative view of their polytheistic religion?

What's the difference in saying: Polytheistic Arabs are degenerate pagans (unless they convert to Islam - then of course they are fine and dandy) and saying: Mohammedans/Muslims are degenerate satanists (unless they convert to Xitianity- then of course they are fine and dandy).

Seems the same to me,
Michael

[Norsefire]

When Mohammad said to his followers the polytheistic Arab's beleif system was corrupted and wrong - was this a degradative view of their polytheistic religion?

What's the difference in saying: Polytheistic Arabs are degenerate pagans (unless they convert to Islam - then of course they are fine and dandy) and saying: Mohammedans/Muslims are degenerate satanists (unless they convert to Xitianity- then of course they are fine and dandy).

Seems the same to me,
Michael

The difference is that Mohommad presented a backed opinion, an educated opinion, he presented an opinion based on the facts. Such films as we are discussing DON'T, they present LIES and PROPAGAND in order to encourage VIOLENCE and HATRED.

Besides, could we not then argue that in this modern day, such things are unacceptable?

[Michael]

The difference is that Mohommad presented a backed opinion, an educated opinion, he presented an opinion based on the facts. Such films as we are discussing DON'T, they present LIES and PROPAGAND in order to encourage VIOLENCE and HATRED.

Firstly, it's only fact IF you believe Mohammad. The Jews living in and around there seemed to think Mohammad was full of it - right? Also, in the end polytheists were murdered as they defended their belief system. That is a historical fact. So we must agree that from that Polytheists' point of view Mohammad's religous ideas encouraged his Muslim followers to perpetrate violence and hatred against the pagan Arabs.

Just put yourself in the shoes a true beleiver of polytheism being murdered while defending your faith. And, you are being murdered because some Mohammad fellow has encouraged violence and hatred against your form of worship. From that point of view Mohammad is the propagandist and telling lies.

It's reletive to the point of view.

Besides, could we not then argue that in this modern day, such things are unacceptable?

Well I do want to see the movie and see what the gripe is about. If it's complete shit then I will say as much.

You may not realize it but many Muslims have a hard time integrating into Western society. One almost wonders why some Muslims migrate here they way they talk about the place. Then there's the ME culture thing. For the life of me I have never met such anti semetic people. I personally think education is the key and this movie will do little to address that BUT maybe it will get people moving off their fat arse to start doing something so that in the future things are better than they are now.

Michael


PS: on the side. Me Iranian buddy still seems to carry this anti semetim around. To me anyway. Against all logic he STILL thinks that Jews are a race. I simply told him look beleive what you want, thinking 1+1=3 isn't going to make it so and Jews are not a race. NOW, I wonder, do you think maybe the Jewish attitude could have helped perpetuate this.　I think so. That's the nature of having an idiotic monotheistic inclusive religion - it pisses people off because it becomes a society within a society.

[(Q)]

The difference is that Mohommad presented a backed opinion, an educated opinion, he presented an opinion based on the facts.

So, the existence of Allah is a fact? Angels, heaven and hell, and all the other fantasies he dreamed up are now facts?

Such films as we are discussing DON'T, they present LIES and PROPAGAND in order to encourage VIOLENCE and HATRED.

The film is based on actions of Muslims; facts.

Besides, could we not then argue that in this modern day, such things are unacceptable?

What the film depicts? Yes.

[Norsefire]

So, the existence of Allah is a fact? Angels, heaven and hell, and all the other fantasies he dreamed up are now facts?

To them, yes, it's their belief. However, in the manner which he taught, he did not speak of only some and then try to frame others.

The film is based on actions of Muslims; facts.

No, it is based on the actions of some Muslims. However, the film itself encourages the viewers to hate ALL MUSLIMS. Don't you get it? That's hate-speech, and the worst part of it is that the "facts" presented by the film are always one-sided, biased, and specifically synthesized in a manner which backs their hate-filled messages.

What the film depicts? Yes.

Both that and the manner in which such films present their message. If you are going to present a film about Islam, why present only some Muslims, and then delude the people into thinking that it is some Holy War against some evil invader?

Instead, present them with ALL the facts, the ups and downs of Islam, the good and bad sides, the moderates and extremists, and present it formally, and then let the people decide.

[(Q)]

To them, yes, it's their belief. However, in the manner which he taught, he did not speak of only some and then try to frame others.

That's the problem, there are NOT facts, they are blind faith based beliefs. To claim they are facts is hypocrisy and delusion and immediately negates any further argument.

No, it is based on the actions of some Muslims. However, the film itself encourages the viewers to hate ALL MUSLIMS.

That is YOUR personal opinion.

Don't you get it?

No, it is YOU who doesn't get it. We've already established that fact.

That's hate-speech, and the worst part of it is that the "facts" presented by the film are always one-sided, biased, and specifically synthesized in a manner which backs their hate-filled messages.

I can't seem to tell you enough times, you are free to make a film which refutes all arguments presented in the film. Yes, you are.

Are you free to act violently towards the filmmaker? Uh... no.

Both that and the manner in which such films present their message. If you are going to present a film about Islam, why present only some Muslims, and then delude the people into thinking that it is some Holy War against some evil invader?

You are free to make a film explaining otherwise. You are not free to commit violent acts towards the filmmaker.

Instead, present them with ALL the facts, the ups and downs of Islam, the good and bad sides, the moderates and extremists, and present it formally, and then let the people decide.

You are free to make a film explaining otherwise. You are not free to commit violent acts towards the filmmaker.

Do YOU get it?

[S.A.M.]

Firstly, it's only fact IF you believe Mohammad. The Jews living in and around there seemed to think Mohammad was full of it - right? Also, in the end polytheists were murdered as they defended their belief system. That is a historical fact. So we must agree that from that Polytheists' point of view Mohammad's religous ideas encouraged his Muslim followers to perpetrate violence and hatred against the pagan Arabs..

Source?

[Norsefire]

That's the problem, there are NOT facts, they are blind faith based beliefs. To claim they are facts is hypocrisy and delusion and immediately negates any further argument.

They are faith, and to Muslims facts.

First of all, it doesn't matter in this situation whether or not they were facts, it matters how he taught them (facts or faith).

That is YOUR personal opinion.

Um, no, have you seen half of the anti-Islamic videos? They'll present you with only one side and encourage you to "join the fight" and "hate Muslims"

No, it is YOU who doesn't get it. We've already established that fact.

No, I do. I never justified violence, I simply said it is to be expected by the more radical of people. However, just like we cannot allow such violence, we also should not and cannot allow such moronic messages spewed into society!

I can't seem to tell you enough times, you are free to make a film which refutes all arguments presented in the film. Yes, you are.

Great, but that isn't the point. If you are going to make a propaganda/political film, how can it be acceptable if all it does is encourage hatred based on FALLACIES?
That, and violence, should be discouraged and dealt with.

Are you free to act violently towards the filmmaker? Uh... no.

Never said I or others were, I simply said it was to be expected.

You are free to make a film explaining otherwise. You are not free to commit violent acts towards the filmmaker.



You are free to make a film explaining otherwise. You are not free to commit violent acts towards the filmmaker.

Do YOU get it?

Again, we've established that it isn't justified. We're on a whole new subject now. The film itself, and other seriously distorted films, do nothing but encourage hatred and such films are beyond mere freedom of speech. As with violence, nobody should be free to make a film saying "Whites/ [insert other group] are evil, they are evil, evil evil evil," and then present you with false facts and a one-sided argument. That should NOT BE TOLERATED UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES.

[(Q)]

They are faith, and to Muslims facts.

Again, that is a HUGE problem as faith has nothing to do with facts.

First of all, it doesn't matter in this situation whether or not they were facts, it matters how he taught them (facts or faith).

Uh, yeah it matters. Facts and faith are opposite ends of the spectrum.

Um, no, have you seen half of the anti-Islamic videos? They'll present you with only one side and encourage you to "join the fight" and "hate Muslims"

That would depend on whether or not YOU will make those decisions for me. You won't. I can decide for myself, thank you very much. Hence, you need not jump to the conclusion that ANY film is going to make me take action on anyone or anything. That is one of the many faults of your argument.

Only the very ignorant and gullible would take violent action towards a film.

No, I do. I never justified violence, I simply said it is to be expected by the more radical of people. However, just like we cannot allow such violence, we also should not and cannot allow such moronic messages spewed into society!

That is where you are wrong. The problem is in fact with the the people who cause the violence and has nothing to do with films. You should eventually get this fact straight some day, one would hope.

Great, but that isn't the point. If you are going to make a propaganda/political film, how can it be acceptable if all it does is encourage hatred based on FALLACIES?

It is again, your personal opinion that they are FALLACIES. The free thinking mind disagrees wholeheartedly.

That, and violence, should be discouraged and dealt with.

It is dealt with. The perpetrators are jailed.

Never said I or others were, I simply said it was to be expected.

That is where you're patently wrong. No, it is NOT expected. Violence is NEVER expected from the results of a film.

...nobody should be free to make a film ...

That should NOT BE TOLERATED UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES

That is the root of your entire argument, and it is entirely false. Come back when you actually DON'T have an unbiased, emotionally charged, religiously motivated argument.

[Norsefire]

Again, that is a HUGE problem as faith has nothing to do with facts.



Uh, yeah it matters. Facts and faith are opposite ends of the spectrum.

Yes, but right we are discussing HOW something is spread and taught, not what it is.

That would depend on whether or not YOU will make those decisions for me. You won't. I can decide for myself, thank you very much. Hence, you need not jump to the conclusion that ANY film is going to make me take action on anyone or anything. That is one of the many faults of your argument.

Only the very ignorant and gullible would take violent action towards a film.

Well, sure, but you are intelligent. Others are not so much. There is no reason to allow those films, and considering their anti-social messages, any sensible government would ban such bullshit.

That is where you are wrong. The problem is in fact with the the people who cause the violence and has nothing to do with films. You should eventually get this fact straight some day, one would hope.

Then let's go on that. We aren't discussing the violent people, we are discussing the film itself, the message of the film, and the manner in which it is presented. Forget the violent for a second. This is just about the film. Even if no one ever got violent, the film itself is flawed and anti-social.

It is again, your personal opinion that they are FALLACIES. The free thinking mind disagrees wholeheartedly.

A movie which specifically presents only the bad of a group of people and encourages you to "join the fight" based off that alone without presenting any other sides is not a fallacy?



[QUOTEIt is dealt with. The perpetrators are jailed.[/QUOTE]
That is the first step. The next step is jailing the makers of the film for their anti-social, racist, discriminative, and hate-speech.



[QUOTEThat is where you're patently wrong. No, it is NOT expected. Violence is NEVER expected from the results of a film.[/QUOTE]
I think you mean it is not JUSTIFIED. It is most defintely EXPECTED because Humans get violent when they are angry, or at least some of them do.

That is the root of your entire argument, and it is entirely false. Come back when you actually DON'T have an unbiased, emotionally charged, religiously motivated argument.

The root of my argument is that, while such violence is not to be tolerated or justified, the actual film itself (forgetting the violence) is also anti-social and based off of a one-sided, hate-filled group. That should also not be tolerated or justified.

[(Q)]

Well, sure, but you are intelligent. Others are not so much. There is no reason to allow those films, and considering their anti-social messages, any sensible government would ban such bullshit.

Ah, so you've finally discovered the problem yourself; intelligence. Good job.

Then let's go on that. We aren't discussing the violent people, we are discussing the film itself, the message of the film, and the manner in which it is presented. Forget the violent for a second. This is just about the film. Even if no one ever got violent, the film itself is flawed and anti-social.

Then, make a film explaining exactly why that film is flawed and anti-social. Simple, really.

A movie which specifically presents only the bad of a group of people and encourages you to "join the fight" based off that alone without presenting any other sides is not a fallacy?

Then, make a movie which specifically presents only the good of a group of people. Simple, really.

That is the first step. The next step is jailing the makers of the film for their anti-social, racist, discriminative, and hate-speech.

One must first make a case, you haven't.

I think you mean it is not JUSTIFIED. It is most defintely EXPECTED because Humans get violent when they are angry, or at least some of them do.

No, I meant "expected" - that is exactly the word I used. Violence is NOT expected form the results of a film.

Humans get angry, but they don't necessarily have to get violent. That is why we have anger management. Deal with it.

The root of my argument is that, while such violence is not to be tolerated or justified, the actual film itself (forgetting the violence) is also anti-social and based off of a one-sided, hate-filled group. That should also not be tolerated or justified.

That is personally biased, emotionally charged and religiously motivated censorship. Ain't gonna happen, unless of course, in an Islamic state.

[Norsefire]

Ah, so you've finally discovered the problem yourself; intelligence. Good job.

And seeing as most people, while certainly not stupid, like to absorb propaganda based on their blind fanatacism, such films are anti-social and anti-progress.

Then, make a film explaining exactly why that film is flawed and anti-social. Simple, really.

OR ban such stupid films.

Then, make a movie which specifically presents only the good of a group of people. Simple, really.

That is also flawed. Although, certainly not as bad as the other considering it does not encourage hatred.
No, the best films would be one that presents an accurate, unbiased history and both sides of an argument, and then lets the people make decisions without relying on their fanatcism and encouraging them with bias

One must first make a case, you haven't.

Of course I have. One-sided arguments that present only a narrow part of a massive group of people and encourage hatred and "joining the fight" are anti-social, and therefore should be banned.

No, I meant "expected" - that is exactly the word I used. Violence is NOT expected form the results of a film.

Humans get angry, but they don't necessarily have to get violent. That is why we have anger management. Deal with it.



That is personally biased, emotionally charged and religiously motivated censorship. Ain't gonna happen, unless of course, in an Islamic state.

But they do, that's a fact. Radicals DO get violent.

That is not anything of the sort. And, as always, I am against theocracy so no worries there.

[(Q)]

And seeing as most people, while certainly not stupid, like to absorb propaganda based on their blind fanatacism, such films are anti-social and anti-progress.

We can the same thing about the religions who would choose to resort to violence when other avenues have failed, too.

OR ban such stupid films.

Or, ban the religions invoking the violence.

No, the best films would be one that presents an accurate, unbiased history and both sides of an argument, and then lets the people make decisions without relying on their fanatcism and encouraging them with bias

What you've essentially offered is a casebook example of complete and total censorship. Congratulations.

One-sided arguments that present only a narrow part of a massive group of people and encourage hatred and "joining the fight" are anti-social, and therefore should be banned.

Abrahamism should therefore be banned.

But they do, that's a fact. Radicals DO get violent.

I'm not disputing that. It is therefore that which makes them radical that needs to be criticized. Perhaps that is what the film wants to depict?

That is not anything of the sort. And, as always, I am against theocracy so no worries there.

[Norsefire]

We can the same thing about the peoplewho would choose to resort to violence when other avenues have failed, too.

Most definitely.

Or, ban the peopleinvoking the violence.

Or both to be safe.

What you've essentially offered is a casebook example of complete and total censorship. Congratulations.

Sure, for things that deserve to be censored. Again, how is offering a one-sided argument backed by hared good for society?

Abrahamism should therefore be banned.

Extremist Abrahamism, yes.

I'm not disputing that. It is therefore that which makes them radical that needs to be criticized. Perhaps that is what the film wants to depict?

The film itself DOES NOT do that though! It really is simple to understand.

We are speaking of the film alone. And what does it do? It provides only a narrow band of people and makes them look evil while encouraging hatred and animosity, and is therefore anti-progress and anti-social. Regardless of whether people got violent, such things should be banned in the blink of an eye.

[(Q)]

We are speaking of the film alone. And what does it do? It provides only a narrow band of people and makes them look evil while encouraging hatred and animosity, and is therefore anti-progress and anti-social. Regardless of whether people got violent, such things should be banned in the blink of an eye.

Ah, then be prepared to ban a very large percentage of all films ever made based on your logic.

[Norsefire]

Ah, then be prepared to ban a very large percentage of all films ever made based on your logic.

Alot of them deserve it.
This film isn't for entertainment purposes. Again, that is ok. This film is for, basically, propaganda. It's political, and hate-filled political films SHOULD be banned.

[(Q)]

Alot of them deserve it.

Then, one has been hoisted by his own petard; narrow-mindedly speaking.

This film isn't for entertainment purposes. Again, that is ok. This film is for, basically, propaganda. It's political, and hate-filled political films SHOULD be banned.

Then, you are free to create an equally if not greater propaganda film and we will watch it together and eat popcorn. We can discuss the merits of it's validity of ethics and magnitude of propaganda all the while criticizing the poor cinematography, without the use of violence.

We can even go for a cold one afterwards.

[Norsefire]

Then, one has been hoisted by his own petard; narrow-mindedly speaking.

Clarification please?

Then, you are free to create an equally if not greater propaganda film and we will watch it together and eat popcorn. We can discuss the merits of it's validity of ethics and magnitude of propaganda all the while criticizing the poor cinematography, without the use of violence.

We can even go for a cold one afterwards.

Why would I want to? That's my point! The political world is special and tender. Such ignorant and hate-filled films and lies, from ANY side, should be banned and the creator arrested or fined IMMEDIATELY.

Now, as I said, unbiased films which present ALL SIDES OF AN ARGUMENT and show an unbiased history, facts, etc, are an entirely different matter and much more former and politically correct.

[(Q)]

Why would I want to?

That's the point entirely. We can ALL go and watch any film we want, talk about its merits and go for a beer afterwards.

You can't ban the film without having viewed it first. Once you've viewed the film, who are you to decide whether or not anyone else can view it?