In response to the Blog entry "Gorillas Are Unreasonable", I have to voice my opinion. The author is basically comparing gorillas with Muslims, which with the tolerance level of both of them, I think it's a fair comparison. In more or less free countries where parody and satire are normal every day occurrences, generally the targets don't get outraged by them and life goes on.
I know the author of the cartoon was making fun of their prophet Mohamed, but so what. Yes, I know, I heard the cartoons were disturbing, but so are many cartoons that make fun of other famous/prophets/deities. South Park makes fun of all of the above, and it was all fun and games until Scientology was on the whipping board, because that's when they lost chef.
Anyway, the crazy Muslims out there are willing to go to war or start blowing up Mc Donalds because of a cartoon, it just tells you the type of mentality that we are dealing with here. So in a sense, I think it was correct to compare gorillas to Muslims, as neither of them appear to have a sense of humor.
Thoughts anyone?
Login to reply to this topic
Comments:
|
Posted by: Don Markstein
Posted on: 2007-11-27 at 10:33:31 AM
|
I think you missed my point.
Quack, Don
Quack, Don
|
Posted by: Pinb@ll Wiz@rd
Posted on: 2007-11-30 at 10:09:10 AM
|
This is quite the controversial topic you've brought up sgr but I'm not religious at all so I don't mind treading into something like this.
Before I say anything else, I want to mention that I disagree with comparing gorillas to Muslims by saying neither have a sense of humor. Obviously gorillas have a sense of humor.
Ok, now that we got that all resolved, I want to let it be known that I think both Scientologists AND Muslims are nuts. They need to lighten up a little bit and stop taking things so seriously and literal all of the time. As you said sgr, most other religious prophets/deities/saviours/etc. have been made fun of in tons of mediums. Some of them are in good fun and some of them could be viewed as attacks but of course Muslims and Scientologists believe that bringing up their religion at all in a non-serious fashion constitutes a brash reaction like say... blowing up a building or quitting your job (which by the way is to help create humor). In the Isaac Hayes vs. South Park situation I'm not mad at Mr. Hayes at all, instead I feel sorry for him. I think it's sad that he can be so brain washed by his religion that he can't go on helping South Park create a risque humor after having made fun of countless other religions and cultures.
But of course the Scientologist situation is less extreme than the Muslim one. The most recent outburst of crazies has been the Sudanese attacking a British teacher for allowing her 7 year old students to call a teddy bear "Muhammad". Are you kidding me? She travels to Sudan to help educate their children out of her own good, free will and is scrutinized for something as simple as ALLOWING her students to name a teddy bear Muhammad. I mean... it's not like she forced them too or even suggested it. The parents should be proud that their children think highly enough of Muhammad to have that name pop in their head first. Besides, the children are only 7 years old. Good thing she only received 15 days in jail as opposed to the more serious 40 lashes. Of course it wasn't a good thing that she was punished at all but 40 lashes would have been sick.
Maybe it isn't such a bad thing that the people of Sudan are committing genocide on each other. After-all it is only the Darwin effect taking place in a more violent fashion.
So there you go, I've stepped into some hot water. Anyone else want to join me?
Before I say anything else, I want to mention that I disagree with comparing gorillas to Muslims by saying neither have a sense of humor. Obviously gorillas have a sense of humor.
Ok, now that we got that all resolved, I want to let it be known that I think both Scientologists AND Muslims are nuts. They need to lighten up a little bit and stop taking things so seriously and literal all of the time. As you said sgr, most other religious prophets/deities/saviours/etc. have been made fun of in tons of mediums. Some of them are in good fun and some of them could be viewed as attacks but of course Muslims and Scientologists believe that bringing up their religion at all in a non-serious fashion constitutes a brash reaction like say... blowing up a building or quitting your job (which by the way is to help create humor). In the Isaac Hayes vs. South Park situation I'm not mad at Mr. Hayes at all, instead I feel sorry for him. I think it's sad that he can be so brain washed by his religion that he can't go on helping South Park create a risque humor after having made fun of countless other religions and cultures.
But of course the Scientologist situation is less extreme than the Muslim one. The most recent outburst of crazies has been the Sudanese attacking a British teacher for allowing her 7 year old students to call a teddy bear "Muhammad". Are you kidding me? She travels to Sudan to help educate their children out of her own good, free will and is scrutinized for something as simple as ALLOWING her students to name a teddy bear Muhammad. I mean... it's not like she forced them too or even suggested it. The parents should be proud that their children think highly enough of Muhammad to have that name pop in their head first. Besides, the children are only 7 years old. Good thing she only received 15 days in jail as opposed to the more serious 40 lashes. Of course it wasn't a good thing that she was punished at all but 40 lashes would have been sick.
Maybe it isn't such a bad thing that the people of Sudan are committing genocide on each other. After-all it is only the Darwin effect taking place in a more violent fashion.
So there you go, I've stepped into some hot water. Anyone else want to join me?
|
|
Posted by: Don Markstein
Posted on: 2007-11-30 at 11:57:24 AM
|
I think you missed my point too.
Quack, Don
Quack, Don
|
|
Posted by: sgr
Posted on: 2007-12-01 at 10:01:34 AM
|
I'm pretty sure I got your point, I just twisted it a little bit because I disagree with your message, which leads me to believe that you missed my point.
I believe that Islam is a destructive religion meant to maintain control of the followers by the ruling class. Much like Christianity (and all it's variants). The difference being, muslims expect tolerance but are not tolerant themselves (Well, I guess the same could be said for Christianity there as well), in that many of them believe it is their duty to kill non-muslims. Oh, and the martyrs, you gotta love them, they blow them selves up for 72 virgins.
It would be funny if 73 suicide bombers blew them selves up, went up to heaven, and got stuck with each other... lmao
I believe that Islam is a destructive religion meant to maintain control of the followers by the ruling class. Much like Christianity (and all it's variants). The difference being, muslims expect tolerance but are not tolerant themselves (Well, I guess the same could be said for Christianity there as well), in that many of them believe it is their duty to kill non-muslims. Oh, and the martyrs, you gotta love them, they blow them selves up for 72 virgins.
It would be funny if 73 suicide bombers blew them selves up, went up to heaven, and got stuck with each other... lmao
|
|
Posted by: Don Markstein
Posted on: 2007-12-03 at 09:05:41 AM
|
The reason I thought you missed my point, sgr, is that you don't seem to have addressed anything I said beyond the title and the first paragraph or two. And if I apparently missed yours, it's because I don't want to stink up my own boards with a lot of political garbage where nobody convinces anybody else anyway.
That's also why I'm not going to go into depth now. But I will say that anyone who ascribes a single set of characteristics to all members of a large and diverse class of people has his head up his ass.
Nothing personal.
But that line about the 73 suicide bombers is pretty funny. I'll try to remember to credit you when I steal it.
Quack, Don
That's also why I'm not going to go into depth now. But I will say that anyone who ascribes a single set of characteristics to all members of a large and diverse class of people has his head up his ass.
Nothing personal.
But that line about the 73 suicide bombers is pretty funny. I'll try to remember to credit you when I steal it.
Quack, Don
|
|
Posted by: Prof. ~.a.~
Posted on: 2008-01-25 at 01:13:27 PM
|
I'm with Don on this one. I know several Muslims who don't believe violence is the answer and who fear for their safety due to this sort of mentality. You can't judge anyone based on their religion, only on their actions.
|
|
Posted by: Don Markstein
Posted on: 2008-01-26 at 05:49:34 AM
|
Even personal friends sometimes carry on about how all Muslims should immediately be put to death. I fear for our tolerant, congenial society, which is rapidly succumbing to the fear being fomented by certain politicians who won't be named (not least because these days, it's almost all of them).
The last time somebody said that to me, I told him I'd had one over for dinner the previous week, and asked if I should have poisoned him. And what about his wife? She's religiously unaffiliated, but she does aid and abet him.
Of course, the best way of killing them is to bomb the cities where they live. But if we did that, I could wind up just like collateral damage, except, of course, for the fact that that only happens to gooks and wogs.
To his credit, my Muslim-hating friend shut up, and hasn't mentioned the subject again. At least, in my presence.
Quack, Don
The last time somebody said that to me, I told him I'd had one over for dinner the previous week, and asked if I should have poisoned him. And what about his wife? She's religiously unaffiliated, but she does aid and abet him.
Of course, the best way of killing them is to bomb the cities where they live. But if we did that, I could wind up just like collateral damage, except, of course, for the fact that that only happens to gooks and wogs.
To his credit, my Muslim-hating friend shut up, and hasn't mentioned the subject again. At least, in my presence.
Quack, Don
|
|
Posted by: Don Markstein
Posted on: 2008-01-26 at 06:00:17 AM
|
By the way, since it's now months old, you may not have seen the thing that started this thread. If you're interested, it's located here.
Quack, Don
Quack, Don
|
|
Posted by: Don Markstein
Posted on: 2008-01-26 at 06:01:28 AM
|
By the way, since it's now months old, you may not have seen the thing that started this thread. If you're interested, it's located here.
Quack, Don
Quack, Don
