Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Fitna Released Online
The same day I recommended that all free speech advocates stand foursquare behind Dutch anti-Islam activist Geert Wilders, the pompadoured parliamentarian released his film Fitna online. It isn't nearly as bad as I suspected; Wilders mostly highlights violent verses in the Koran, intercut with blood-thirsty sermons from PA and Saudi television, images of terror attacks, public hangings and executions, beheadings, etc.
Rather than ignoring Wilders, Dutch Prime Minister Jan Balkenende went into crisis mode, meeting with Dutch Muslims and saying that he "regretted" the film's release. The European Union blasted Wilders, blubbering that freedom of speech "should be exercised in a spirit of respect for religious and other beliefs and convictions."
I'm not sure if there's some fatwa against embedding videos, but watch and decide for yourself:
|3.28.08 @ 1:18PM|#
I said this before, but with a few tweaks, this is something I wouldn't be surprised to see on Fox News.
Neu Mejican|3.28.08 @ 1:18PM|#
blubbering that freedom of speech "should be exercised in a
spirit of respect for religious and other beliefs and
convictions
Blubbering?
Nicely disrespectful of other's beliefs.
Rights, of course, never imply responsibilities.
|3.28.08 @ 1:29PM|#
A film denouncing imperialism, theocracy, homophobia, violence against women ... this extreme right-wing propaganda must be stopped!
Elemenope|3.28.08 @ 1:42PM|#
Rights, of course, never imply responsibilities.
Do you even know where you are right now, NM?
It isn't nearly as bad as I suspected; Wilders
mostly highlights violent verses in the Koran, intercut with
blood-thirsty sermons from PA and Saudi television, images of
terror attacks, public hangings and executions, beheadings,
etc.
Um...please tell us. What were you expecting?
Neu Mejican|3.28.08 @ 1:46PM|#
LMNOP,
Do you even know where you are right now, NM?
Why yes, yes I do.
But thanks for the concern.
Did you have a point?
|3.28.08 @ 2:01PM|#
"It isn't nearly as bad as I suspected"
The other day you wrote it was "reductive and puerile". Does that
mean when you wrote those words you hadn't actually seen it yet? If
so, what evidence convinced you? Why did you attack it?
I'm just wondering because it seems to have a lot to do with the
issues of free speech being discussed. Indeed many people are
attacking the movie, some in Europe calling for it to be banned,
and I bet 99% of them haven't seen it either. Though I'm sure many
have different motivations. Some are angry, some are probably just
trying to be sensitive.
I haven't watched it so I have no opinion. (I have to wait till I
get home.)
thanks
|3.28.08 @ 2:01PM|#
Who would have watched this film if the controversy, the hair
pulling, breast beating, whiny, threatening condemnation by certain
Muslims was absent?
Tens of millions of people are going to view this who never would
have noticed or given a rat's ass without all of the brouhaha. The
riots will occur, I expect they've started already, confirming in
many minds that Islam is indeed a violent, intolerant faith.
Some people just don't get it. Geert Wilders is using the Islamic
fringe like marionettes.
Neu Mejican|3.28.08 @ 2:13PM|#
JsubD,
Geert Wilders is using the Islamic fringe like
marionettes.
He learned this from watching Osama bin Ladin perhaps?
Both in the way he pulls the strings of the Islamic fringe and the
way he pulls the strings of western leaders, of course.
TallDave|3.28.08 @ 2:18PM|#
Let's try this:
Wilders mostly highlights violent teachings of Buddha, intercut
with blood-thirsty sermons from the Dalai Lama and Chinese
television, images of terror attacks, public hangings and
executions, beheadings, etc
No, no. Maybe...
Wilders mostly highlights violent teachings of Jesus, intercut
with blood-thirsty sermons from American and Italian television,
images of terror attacks, public hangings and executions,
beheadings, etc
Hmmm. No, doesn't work either.
|3.28.08 @ 2:23PM|#
The other day you wrote it was "reductive and puerile". Does
that mean when you wrote those words you hadn't actually seen it
yet? If so, what evidence convinced you? Why did you attack
it?
Out of curiosity I looked up the article from which chrisb quoted
and here's the full sentence:
"That Wilders possesses extremist views, that his interpretation of
Islam is both reductive and puerile, is of no particular relevance
in this case, unless one subscribes to the view that there exists
an arbitrary boundary between right to free speech and freedom
from offense" (emphasis in original).
Seems to me that his statement was referring to Wilders' opinions
in general, and not specifically his video. I mention this not to
defend Moynihan (as I'm sure he can do that himself) but just to
save others who share my curiosity the trouble of looking up the
full quote.
|3.28.08 @ 2:34PM|#
It is a very limited, almost unfair view of Islam in this video,
but as J sub D alluded to, there is a "fringe" that is depicted
very unflinchingly here.
Plus: I can't believe 'homo' is the actual Dutch word for
'gay'.
|3.28.08 @ 2:34PM|#
He learned this from watching Osama bin Ladin perhaps?
Both in the way he pulls the strings of the Islamic fringe and the
way he pulls the strings of western leaders, of course.
In that they both seek to exacerbate violence and cutural clashes,
that their pronouncements are best ignored, yes.
Taktix®|3.28.08 @ 2:40PM|#
Plus: I can't believe 'homo' is the actual Dutch word for
'gay'.
Uhh, homosexual is the English term for gay, and according to the
ol' free translator, gay translates to "De homoseksueel."
From the little I've seen of Dutch, however, it seems like Dutch is
the closest language to English. Any more cunning linguists care to
elaborate?
Colin|3.28.08 @ 2:42PM|#
It's unfortunate the film doesn't discuss the best verse in the
Koran -- the one that says that women must be chaste outside of
marriage, with the exception that all women may freely give
themselves to Mohammed.
It's good to be a prophet.
TallDave|3.28.08 @ 2:42PM|#
The European Union blasted Wilders, blubbering that freedom
of speech "should be exercised in a spirit of respect for
religious and other beliefs and convictions
unfreedom."
There, fixed it.
Blerp|3.28.08 @ 2:47PM|#
Scary stuff ... very enlightening. I personally do not care if this is representative of 10, 20, or 50 percent of all Muslims ... it is well established that their numbers are large enough, coupled with an insidious motivation to establish a murderous tyranny over Planet Earth. They must be stopped ...
short, fat bastard|3.28.08 @ 2:49PM|#
Spanish Inquisition, Salem Witch Trials . .
Islam is only a few hundred years behind Christianity. Given that
Christianity had a huge head start, they seem to be making up
ground quickly.
|3.28.08 @ 2:52PM|#
Nicely disrespectful of other's beliefs.
Whatever.
The EU thinks that that freedom of speech "should be exercised in a
spirit of respect for religious and other beliefs and convictions,"
which is to say freedom of speech only when it doesn't offend
someone.
And religous speech, particularly the islamic sort, is totally
respectful of other religious convictions, or lack thereof.
Riiiiight....
|3.28.08 @ 2:52PM|#
Any more cunning linguists care to elaborate?
"cunning linguists": Is that an embedded pun?
|3.28.08 @ 2:52PM|#
From the little I've seen of Dutch, however, it seems like
Dutch is the closest language to English.
I've heard that German is actually the closest to English, but then
again German is very close to Dutch, so I'd say you're close enough
for government work.
On a side note, when I visited the Netherlands I was told to NEVER
tell anybody there that their language is very similar to German (I
was studying in Germany at the time). You could tell them German
was very similar to Dutch, but not the other way around.
Episiarch|3.28.08 @ 2:55PM|#
From the little I've seen of Dutch, however, it seems like
Dutch is the closest language to English. Any more cunning
linguists care to elaborate?
Cunning...linguist...
I believe Frisian is the closest language, Scots being debated as
to whether it is a dialect or a separate language. Frisian is
spoken mostly in the Netherlands.
|3.28.08 @ 2:55PM|#
Uhh, homosexual is the English term for gay, and according to the ol' free translator, gay translates to "De homoseksueel."
I understand the roots of the word 'homosexual', I just thought it was funny that they'd abbreviate it to 'homo' in newspaper headlines because that would obviously never fly in English.
Blerp|3.28.08 @ 2:57PM|#
short fat bastard ... you have it all wrong. The examples that you gave were of Christianity warring against it's own people ... which the Islamists are certainly doing. The defining difference between the two religions is that Christianity has left the Crusades behind ... it has evolved. Islam is still stuck in the Crusade mentality, the witch-trial mentality, the Inquisition mentality ... with no sign of evolving out of all of it.
|3.28.08 @ 3:00PM|#
Taktix(r),
Yes, Dutch and English are very close, since they both evolved from
Old Low German.
The words homosexual and homoseksueel are not purely germanic
words, but come from the Greek root homo ("same") added to the
local word for "sexual."
The classics, lads, never forget the classics.
|3.28.08 @ 3:02PM|#
Agree with Moynihan. Not that bad. A pure piece of cherrypicking
propaganda, but given the material available, more selective than
unfair. Not likely to convert or inspire anyone save the fatwa
set.
One thing that occured to me, there seems to be an absence of
similar warnings about free speech and not giving offense when
certain Imams preach this hatred in Europe. I have no dog in this
fight, but European leaders need to brandish the argument that free
speech entails respect a bit more consistently. That's all I
have.
|3.28.08 @ 3:08PM|#
Rights, of course, never imply responsibilities.
Ahem, Neu Mejican, to whom am I responsible when I
exercise my rights?
|3.28.08 @ 3:10PM|#
It is interesting that some people like J Sub D think this guy is a bad guy for making the film and in fact on at least some levels equal to Bin Ladin in that he just does things for effect and to cause cultural conflict. What is the alternative? There really are radicals out there who do things like cut off heads and the like and the sermons in the film are real sermons. Are we just supposed to ignore this stuff and pretend it doesn't exist? Stiring up cultural conflict would be making things up or filming false sermons in order to make people think that this stuff exists when it really doesn't. That doesn't seem to be happneing here at all. If Muslims don't like this stuff being publicized, perhaps they should tell the people who are doing it to stop rather than killing the messenger.
|3.28.08 @ 3:11PM|#
From the little I've seen of Dutch, however, it seems like Dutch is the closest language to English.
Anecdotal, but of all the immigrants I have met, I have found the
Dutch tend to master English the quickest and to speak it
practically accent-free. Danes come in second. Which is rather
strange because I find the written form of both languages utterly
strange.
Today practically everyone in the Netherlands speak fluent
unaccented English. It is the only European country that I've been
to where you can get around with absolutely zero local language
skills.
I believe Episiarch is correct that Frisian is the closest language
to English and I believe it is in fact from the same root as
Anglo-Saxon.
Frisian is spoken in the northeast of Holland, the northwest of
Germany and the south of Denmark, IIANM. This is also where the
Angles, Saxons and Jutes came from.
|3.28.08 @ 3:13PM|#
"Agree with Moynihan. Not that bad. A pure piece of
cherrypicking propaganda,"
How so? Is any of this false? Are the people in the video really
nice guys who are taken out of context? Do they deserve the
"Reverend Wright defense" in that they are just misunderstood and
do a lot of great things to? Are there more moderate variations of
Islam? Of course. But, this film isn't dealing with those. It is
dealing with the worst strains and seems to be portraying those
things for what they are. You could certainly make a film showing
only the moderate and tolerent sides of Islam. Both films would be
equally true.
|3.28.08 @ 3:16PM|#
some people like J Sub D think this guy is a ...in fact on
at least some levels equal to Bin Ladin
He said they're similar in type, John, not similar in degree.
But you knew that already. Else you'd have to be one of
the less discerning people I've ever met, and I don't think you're
that dumb.
And it shouldn't just be Muslims, John...all civilized people
should denounce this stuff. All the calls for "Muslims need to
clean up their house!" is bigoted, tribalistic blather.
But you KNEW THAT too!
|3.28.08 @ 3:18PM|#
Else you'd have to be one of the less discerning people I've
ever met, and I don't think you're that dumb.
And that is your first mistake.
|3.28.08 @ 3:18PM|#
It is a film for ostraches keeping their heads in the sand and for dummies, or are these the same?
short, fat bastard|3.28.08 @ 3:19PM|#
The examples that you gave were of Christianity warring
against it's own people ...
The inqusition featured a wide variety of coercive methods for
converting Jews to Christianity.
The defining difference between the two religions is that
Christianity has left the Crusades behind
Only because the Europeans replaced religion with nationality and
ethnicity as a good reasons for killing each other.
|3.28.08 @ 3:20PM|#
Read the rest of the sentence Ayn Randian. It says it is equal
to Bin Ladin in that it they both stir up cultural conflict. I
never said he equated them in every way. At least try to read the
post before you put up some bullshit smug retort.
Further, no one is calling on Muslims to do anything other than
quit complaining about people telling the truth. Again, this stuff
exists. What should be done? Should it just be ignored? If this
film disturbs you as a Muslim, it should be because what is going
on, not because someone had the gall to criticize you.
|3.28.08 @ 3:21PM|#
"And it shouldn't just be Muslims, John...all civilized people
should denounce this stuff. All the calls for "Muslims need to
clean up their house!" is bigoted, tribalistic blather."
Are calls for Christians to clean up their house bigoted to? If
someone made a movie about the various Christian slaughters that
went on during the Crusades would that be bigoted?
Tacos mmm...|3.28.08 @ 3:21PM|#
Anecdotal, but of all the immigrants I have met, I have found the Dutch tend to master English the quickest and to speak it practically accent-free. Danes come in second. Which is rather strange because I find the written form of both languages utterly strange.
Really? I speak no Dutch, but always found I could blunder through
a Dutch newspaper without a great deal of difficulty, something I
can't say for any other language I've left unstudied.
DannyK|3.28.08 @ 3:25PM|#
The angry Muslims and the provocative filmmakers seem to be enmeshed in a symbiotic media-sucking relationship. Is there a coherent political philosophy behind my reaction of "shut up, the lot of you"?
|3.28.08 @ 3:25PM|#
I believe Frisian is the closest language, Scots being debated as to whether it is a dialect or a separate language. Frisian is spoken mostly in the Netherlands.
Exactly right. Anglo-Frisian is a branch of West Germanic, and the
Dutch-German branch is the other. Dutch and German are the
same language, in essence; there's not some magic line at the
border where they speak Dutch on one side and German on the other.
Low German (the dialects spoken in northern Germany) blends
seamlessly into Dutch as you get closer to the Netherlands. Low
German blends into Central German as you move south (and into the
mountains), and then into High German in the south. I was pretty
fluent in German in high school, and when I heard Swiss German (one
of the highest of the High German dialects) being spoken I couldn't
understand a word. Speaking English helps to understand the Low
German dialects a bit (English originated in the same area as the
Low German dialects, so it shares some of the sound changes even
though it's from a different branch), but High German has so many
consonant shifts that you just have to get used to hearing it.
Neu Mejican|3.28.08 @ 3:26PM|#
Ayn R,
Rights, of course, never imply responsibilities.
Ahem, Neu Mejican, to whom am I responsible when I exercise my
rights?
Re-read that sentence again.
BakedPenguin|3.28.08 @ 3:26PM|#
I believe Episiarch is correct that Frisian is the closest language to English and I believe it is in fact from the same root as Anglo-Saxon.
True, but the fact that up to 40% of English words come from French
messes that up a bit. Otherwise, it would be very easy to learn
Frisian.
And yes, going to the Netherlands is (linguistically) like going to
some Twilight Zone midwestern state where people speak near
perfect, if accented, English while all the signs are in a
different language.
short, fat bastard|3.28.08 @ 3:28PM|#
Bosnia-Herzegovina: 1992-1995 - 200,000 Deaths
Rwanda: 1994 - 800,000 Deaths
Pol Pot in Cambodia: 1975-1979 - 2,000,000 Deaths
Nazi Holocaust: 1938-1945 - 6,000,000 Deaths
Rape of Nanking: 1937-1938 - 300,000 Deaths
Stalin's Forced Famine: 1932-1933 - 7,000,000 Deaths
Armenians in Turkey: 1915-1918 - 1,500,000 Deaths
Plus the Chinese killed off a million or so Tibets in last
century.
Not to diminish the threat that virulent muslim philosphy
represents to the modern world, but you need to keep things in
perspective.
ktc2|3.28.08 @ 3:29PM|#
Islam is at the same bloodthirsty senseless point as Christianity was in the "dark ages". They need a few more hundred years of pointless bloodshed before they have their Renaissance.
|3.28.08 @ 3:30PM|#
John, I read the post. You know what you're doing; I don't need
to treat you like a child.
Are calls for Christians to clean up their house bigoted to? If
someone made a movie about the various Christian slaughters that
went on during the Crusades would that be bigoted?
WTF are you talking about?
My point was that it seems funny to me that you always call on
Muslims to generate some outrage, as if that's not already
happening and as if that would somehow make you happy.
This manufactured sense of "muslims aren't doing enough" is a just
a convenient way for you to be bigoted about Muslims. My point is
that ALL civilized folks should be called on to get angry about
stuff like this, and it's very convenient that you ONLY ever pick
on moderate Muslims.
|3.28.08 @ 3:31PM|#
True enough fat bastard. To use a cliche it is what it is. It is certainly not communism or Nazism yet, but it does exist and it is very nasty. I don't see how this guy is bad for pointing that out. If it needs to be put in context with the hundreds of millions of Muslims who don't cut off people's heads, then by all means do so. But there is nothing racist or bad about exposing this stuff to the light of day.
|3.28.08 @ 3:31PM|#
Re-read that sentence again.
I don't think my sarcasm meter is that broken, Neu.
|3.28.08 @ 3:33PM|#
"This manufactured sense of "muslims aren't doing enough" is a
just a convenient way for you to be bigoted about Muslims. My point
is that ALL civilized folks should be called on to get angry about
stuff like this, and it's very convenient that you ONLY ever pick
on moderate Muslims."
Again. I am not calling on Muslims to do anything. The point is
that this stuff exists and bringing its existence to the light of
day is not a bad thing. Doing so does not put the onus on moderate
Muslims to do anything except not shoot the messenger. My objection
is the idea that there is something wrong with a film that shows
actual events and people as they are.
|3.28.08 @ 3:34PM|#
Randian until you can show how this film isn't true or shows things that people didn't really say or do, you need to shut the fuck up and quit whining racism. There is nothing racist about the truth.
|3.28.08 @ 3:35PM|#
John,
Try to avoid cutting off money clauses from key sentences, and you
have the answer to the "how so" question you were seeking. I said
nothing about falsity. It's not that difficult. The film was not
designed to really inform anyone, it was a pretty well-edited
"preaching to the choir" sort of piece. Since I really detest all
appeals to religious authority in any context, it's not the type of
film that moves me. That's all. Aside from the chickenshit
handwringing going on, I could wake up tomorrow and never recall
seeing it in the first place.
|3.28.08 @ 3:36PM|#
Moreover,
What the hell have you ever done about extremist violence? When are
you ever on here condeming anything that doesn't effect your right
to read poorly written novels? Give me a break. I have never seen
you do anything but call anyone who does bother to notice violence
a racist for doing so.
short, fat bastard|3.28.08 @ 3:36PM|#
If it needs to be put in context with the hundreds of
millions of Muslims who don't cut off people's heads, then by all
means do so.
My point is that Islam is not the problem. The problem is inherent
in humanity. Poverty and ignorance brings the problem to the
surface. Technology makes it easier to commit atrocities.
Group-think of any kind can be sufficient to start the
bloodshed.
|3.28.08 @ 3:37PM|#
you need to shut the fuck up and quit whining
racism.
Oh dear. Never said racism, John.
You wrote:
If Muslims don't like this stuff being publicized, perhaps they
should tell the people who are doing it to stop rather than killing
the messenger.
Now, I am going to ask you again: don't you find it strange that
you said that MUSLIMS should be the ones to tell these people to
stop?
Like I said, you know what you're doing. You're only looking to
Islam to clean this up when it's a problem for all of us. Why? So
you can have your Two-Minutes Hate on Muslims, like all the little
inflammatory righties told you to.
|3.28.08 @ 3:40PM|#
Oh and John, that silence you hear from "moderate" Muslims...it might have something to do with the fact that many of them are scared shitless. I guarantee you they would be in more danger than any of us if they were to speak out about the crimes that are being committed in the name of Islam. Nice try though.
|3.28.08 @ 3:40PM|#
"The film was not designed to really inform anyone, it was a
pretty well-edited "preaching to the choir" sort of piece."
It is designed to make a point. So what? There is nothing that says
that everything has to be perfectly in context or not make a point.
Moreover, nothing ever is. Everything is done from one perspective
or another. Is there a moderate response to this? Of course there
is. The answer is that while these types of things go on, they are
not typical of the Muslim attitude or experience in the world.
Muslims ought to be making that point in response to this film.
But, the fact is that what is portrayed in the film does exist and
is a part, albeit a small one, of the Muslim world. There is
nothing wrong with pointing that out.
|3.28.08 @ 3:42PM|#
"Now, I am going to ask you again: don't you find it strange
that you said that MUSLIMS should be the ones to tell these people
to stop?"
Read the sentence again. I said "if Muslims have a problem with the
film". I never said Muslims have a duty to do anything anyone else
does, but they can't complain about a film that shows things that
actually exist.
|3.28.08 @ 3:43PM|#
"Oh and John, that silence you hear from "moderate" Muslims...it
might have something to do with the fact that many of them are
scared shitless. I guarantee you they would be in more danger than
any of us if they were to speak out about the crimes that are being
committed in the name of Islam. Nice try though."
If that is true, the I would say the film is pretty acurate.
|3.28.08 @ 3:46PM|#
John,
Here is the precious point you are looking for:
"I am Geert Wilders, and I approved this message."
If you really got something else out of this film, well then you
are part of that choir I was speaking about before. Carry on.
|3.28.08 @ 3:48PM|#
This is one guy's opinion of Islam. Is it the ultimate truth?
Hell no. There are a million things you could say in response to
this film. I think someone who is Muslim ought to make a response
showing how whacked out the radicals' interpretation of Islam is
and how the vast majority of Muslims don't buy that crap.
Regardless, the things that are depicted in this film exist. They
have to be explained and delt with. This film ought to be the
starting point of a debate. Instead of that, we get horseshit, PC,
Sanctimonous crap like Randian put out dismissing it as racist
without ever dealing with the film on its own terms.
|3.28.08 @ 3:51PM|#
I guarantee you they would be in more danger than any of us
if they were to speak out about the crimes that are being committed
in the name of Islam.
Probably similar to the danger people face when they convert from
Islam like that guy who converted on Easter and Ayaan Hirsi
Ali.
The point is that this stuff exists and bringing its existence
to the light of day is not a bad thing. Doing so does not put the
onus on moderate Muslims to do anything except not shoot the
messenger. My objection is the idea that there is something wrong
with a film that shows actual events and people as they
are.
Oh please. First, is there a person on Earth who doesn't know
Muslim extremist terrorists exists? It's a bit late to simply
'bring it to the light of day.' That was not the intention of this
film.
The intention was to set up Islam as inherently violent, then
towards the end, they showed how Muslim populations were growing
and civilization and the Netherlands itself was at risk. I think
it's pretty obvious what Wilders' intention was.
Obviously, any extremists are a problem, but when Wilders equates
extremists with general populations, it goes beyond "showing events
and people as they are." Wilders could have stopped at the
extremists, but he brought in general the general population of
Muslims and that's where he goes wrong.
Neu Mejican|3.28.08 @ 3:53PM|#
Ayn Randian,
I don't think my sarcasm meter is that broken, Neu.
Get it checked by an expert.
|3.28.08 @ 3:54PM|#
I honestly don't know how you got so worked up over this John. It is such low-hanging fruit to edit together atrocity exhibitions (apologies to Joy Division) from any religion. It is generally not a point of departure for a meaningful debate of any kind. The real debate here is over free speech. In this case, I am fully in Wilders corner. The film itself, to recap, meh.
|3.28.08 @ 3:55PM|#
It is designed to make a point. So what? There is nothing
that says that everything has to be perfectly in context or not
make a point.
Just like Michael Moore movies right John? You never have a problem
with them for selectively picking and choosing things taken out of
context even though it's technically "true" ?
Oh I get it...context doesn't matter when the point being made is
one you agree with.
|3.28.08 @ 3:58PM|#
"First, is there a person on Earth who doesn't know Muslim
extremist terrorists exists?"
There isn't really Adamness, don't take the histrionics
seriously.
Fortisquince|3.28.08 @ 4:08PM|#
Here's the real reason why the Dutch and the Scandinavians speak
English much much better than the Germans and others...
In the Netherlands and in Scandinavian countries, British and
American television shows are aired with subtitles. In Germany,
they are dubbed into german.
Neu Mejican|3.28.08 @ 4:17PM|#
Ayn Randian,
Just to be clear.
Rights and responsibilities are not necessarily logically linked.
Particularly when the term "right" is defined as it is around
here.
That, of course, doesn't mean that people in a society don't have
both rights and responsibilities.
This fact, of course, does not mean that rights (as in "negative
rights") ever imply responsibilities.
Of course the concept that only negative rights exist, requires a
restriction on the word's semantics that goes well beyond that of
everyday usage.
I was making fun only of the concept that people around here would
argue that they have not responsibility to anyone but
themselves.
|3.28.08 @ 4:25PM|#
At the risk of being branded an anti-Muslim bigot or a
Europhile, I believe he is not trying so much to make a point about
Islam in the whole world. He is trying to point out that the
swelling Muslim population of the Netherlands includes folks who
REALLY don't share the values traditionally associated with the
Netherlands and held by the majority of its people.
When Americans think "Muslim", they think of the inhabitants of the
middle east. When Europeans think "Muslim", they can think more of
the inhabitants of their suburbs who seem to hold really scary
ideas.
I think it reasonable for the Mainstream Dutch to ask, "Could we
have a show of hands of those of you who don't intend to slaughter
us once you become a majority?" They might want to adjust
immigration policy accordingly.
For reasons I don't entirely understand, Muslims in America seem to
want to be American. For this I'm thankful.
I can't believe 'homo' is the actual Dutch word for 'gay'.
Nit dat es is irgendz vrangt med
det...
(Sorry, that was purely made-up Dutch; I'm too lazy to look it up
or consult a friend...)
|3.28.08 @ 4:28PM|#
Meu Mejican,
I initially thought you were being sarcastic as well. Perhaps your
phrasing, perhaps my reading. Either way, I'll take you at your
word. Rights never imply responsibilities.
Razon|3.28.08 @ 4:34PM|#
lol, people will always find excuses for killing each
other
but it does make it easier if your prophet demands you to kill each
other
Neu Mejican|3.28.08 @ 4:42PM|#
JsubD,
My writing, I am sure.
The first line was sarcastic or, at least dismissive of
MM.
This seems to have given the sheen of sarcasm to the following
line.
Neu Mejican|3.28.08 @ 4:45PM|#
So Ayn Randian & JsubD,
Now that we are, perhaps, on the same page.
Do individuals in a society also have responsibilities of any
kind?
|3.28.08 @ 4:56PM|#
Do individuals in a society also have responsibilities of
any kind?
Well, the first question is "To whom?"
Since we're all born into society, I'd hate to think that the yoke
of responsibility attaches right in the crib, like some kind of
perverse leftist version of Original Sin.
Neu Mejican|3.28.08 @ 4:57PM|#
Ayn Randian,
I was leaving the "to whom" open to your opinion...part of the
question, as it were.
|3.28.08 @ 5:01PM|#
Do individuals in a society also have responsibilities of
any kind?
I do. Many. The difference is that I insist, even demand, others
have rights. I am less comfortable doing so regarding
responsibilities. All citizens have responsibilities to dependent
minors. all citizens have the resposibilty to respect others
rights. Other than those, I'm hard pressed to name any other
responsibilities.
|3.28.08 @ 5:05PM|#
IOW, other than self imposed, you have NO responsibility for your neighbors three year old. You have NO responsibility to report a crime. You have NO responsibility to participate in the community whatsoever.
|3.28.08 @ 5:05PM|#
i'd love to watch and judge for myself. any links where it hasn't been censored?
Neu Mejican|3.28.08 @ 5:08PM|#
JsubD,
all citizens have the resposibilty to respect others
rights.
Not being churlish, but that sounds very similar to what Jan
Balkenende said (i.e., "should be exercised in a spirit of respect
for religious and other beliefs and convictions.")
I am not equating the two, but both use the terms "respect," and
Balkenende uses "should" while avoiding any term indicating that it
is mandatory.
Neu Mejican|3.28.08 @ 5:10PM|#
You have NO responsibility to participate in the community
whatsoever.
I am having difficulty imagining how one would pull this off.
|3.28.08 @ 5:11PM|#
Neu - I mean, without an applicable party to whom I
should/should not be responsible, I have difficulty
answering.
well, all responsiblities other than those are that are enforced by
law are self-imposed,. I'm virulently opposed to mandating morality
and responsibility.
However, I do think it's the right thing to do to report a
crime, or help a lost or sick child. But I think that one should
want to do it on his own.
I suppose I could say that I think it's OK for people around you in
a given society to expect certain things of you and to even
peer-pressure you into becoming a more responsible citizen. But
force is never an appropriate tool to convince people to do the
right thing.
Does that help any?
Neu Mejican|3.28.08 @ 5:15PM|#
Ayn Randian,
I think I assumed as much, but your answer seems to, if not beg the
question, avoid an answer.
Clearly if force is carefully defined, no one should have the right
to force others, but the line between forcing, expecting, and
persuading is blurrier than that isn't it?
|3.28.08 @ 5:24PM|#
Clearly if force is carefully defined, no one should have
the right to force others, but the line between forcing, expecting,
and persuading is blurrier than that isn't it?
Maybe. But we'll have to muddle through somehow...
Like I said, I think that ocmmon citizenship principles are crucial
to maintaining a liberty-loving and free civilization. The irony is
that the liberty-loving society we generate using those principles
would instantly undo itself if it forced them on people.
Briefer answer: Yes, you have responsibilities in society, provided
that being free is high on your list of priorities (as it should
be).
|3.28.08 @ 5:29PM|#
Not being churlish, but that sounds very similar to what Jan
Balkenende said (i.e., "should be exercised in a spirit of respect
for religious and other beliefs and convictions.")
Hardly. Neither I, nor any other has a right to have my
superstitions/convictions respected.
SxCx|3.28.08 @ 5:34PM|#
We stood for what we believe in, the ability to be heard,
but in the end the price was too high.
The West's famous last words?
|3.28.08 @ 5:38PM|#
Also keep in mind it's generally in one's self-interest to
participate to some degree in a community.
Responsibility to each other, just person to person relations, is
also different than government requiring it in some fashion.
|3.28.08 @ 5:40PM|#
Ayn_Randian, Neu Mejican,
Are we possibly stumbling over the differences with
responsibilities and duties?
Neu Mejican|3.28.08 @ 5:51PM|#
JsubD,
The claim wasn't that anyone had a right to have their beliefs
respected.
You said there was a responsibility to "respect other's
rights."
This is, actually, a stronger statement than the Prime
Ministers...who said, essentially, "the right thing to do is to
respect other's beliefs."
No one claimed you had a responsibility to respect other's
beliefs.
Your statement seems to imply that I do have a responsibility
(which is exactly equal to duty imho) to others...and that duty is
to respect their rights. Meaning, I guess (to stay Randian) that
you see the rights of others as a limit on your own rights.
Is that accurate?
|3.28.08 @ 5:52PM|#
The film has been pulled due to threats against LiveLeak's
staff.
First rule of political theatre: GET A REACTION.
Neu Mejican|3.28.08 @ 5:57PM|#
The film has been pulled due to threats against LiveLeak's
staff.
Sounds like it needs to be aired on public television or hosted by
a government server then.
[ducks]
|3.28.08 @ 5:58PM|#
The film has been pulled due to threats against LiveLeak's
staff.
If any of you are familiar with what happened after Scientology got
their videos pulled, should we expect Anon to hack the Muslim
extremists?
Pendulum|3.28.08 @ 6:04PM|#
I'm virulently opposed to mandating morality and
responsibility.
But all of law is the mandating of morality and responsibility,
from forcing people from wife-beating cultures to stop beating
their wives, to forcing people who think they're allowed to beat
their children to do otherwise. All of law is the imposition of a
particular set of moral choices, by force, over another.
|3.28.08 @ 6:11PM|#
But all of law is the mandating of morality and
responsibility
Damn, the fatal flaw.
I don't quite have an answer for this other than we can
semi-scientifically use history as a guide to show us what laws are
most useful, rather than the most moral, provided our metric is
"human happiness".
That is, if liberty is necessary to man's happiness, let's look at
what it takes to produce a liberty-oriented society.
Of course, that's circular in that if human happiness is the proper
metric, is it the most moral position an individual can take?
I have no answers other than "Liberty works".
Pendulum|3.28.08 @ 6:23PM|#
I don't quite have an answer for this other than we can
semi-scientifically use history as a guide to show us what laws are
most useful, rather than the most moral, provided our metric is
"human happiness".
I basically agree with all of this. But isn't it possible that
things like minimal forced taxation, forced social programs for
abused children and assistance to the mentally retarded are better
at achieving human happiness? After all, most successful societies
have some element of this.
I'm not sure if the above is true, but I do know that it's an
empirical question which is undermined by an assertion that de re
liberty = happiness.
|3.28.08 @ 6:38PM|#
I do know that it's an empirical question which is
undermined by an assertion that de re liberty =
happiness.
well, maybe, but at some point you have to stop analyzing the data
and actually pick a side, don't you?
Paul|3.28.08 @ 6:39PM|#
The European Union blasted Wilders, blubbering that freedom
of speech "should be exercised in a spirit of respect for religious
and other beliefs and convictions."
Why?
If we don't respect someone's religion, it might hurt their
feelers? Does the EU really care about a large number of people
with hurt feelers? Or, perhaps they're worried that something might
happen. Something physical. A reaction of some kind?
|3.28.08 @ 6:39PM|#
You said there was a responsibility to "respect other's
rights."
This is, actually, a stronger statement than the Prime
Ministers...who said, essentially, "the right thing to do is to
respect other's beliefs."
I am rtesponsible to respect their right to hold beliefs.
I'm have no resposibility to respect the beliefs themselves. To me,
that is a big difference. You can be a flat earther. I can call you
a fool for it.
Paul|3.28.08 @ 6:44PM|#
NM,
Yes, blubbering. And no, I don't "respect" everyone elses beliefs.
Or more accurately, I don't respect every belief other people(s)
hold. I have a right to denounce them, sometimes
disrepectfully.
Or again, do I bite my tongue because I fear a non-verbal reaction
of some kind? You bet I do.
Someone in a recent thread on this subject made a comment about
someone wearing a "Jesus is a cunt" tee-shirt.
I spent some time thinking about it. Really thinking about it.
Then, I imagined a scenario. Two tee-shirts-- pretend you have to
wear one of them, publicly. One says "Jesus is a cunt", the other
says "Muhammed is a cunt". Which one do you do you wear?
|3.28.08 @ 6:46PM|#
In fact, If I asy I respect the Islamic or Christan religions, it would be a white lie. Most theists feel the same way about my lack of religious beliefs. I can live with that, just respect my right to hold and express my beliefs, as I respect yours.
|3.28.08 @ 6:46PM|#
Probably similar to the danger people face when they convert
from Islam like that guy who converted on Easter and Ayaan Hirsi
Ali.
This reminds me of a justifiable threadjack that I've been
planning.
A few months ago I asked there was a voluntary fundraising effort
to pay for Ayaan Hirsi Ali's protective detail.
http://www.reason.com/blog/show/122965.html
It turns out there is one. If anyone is interested in donating or
finding out the details the information is here:
http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/frequently-asked-questions-about-the-ayaan-hirsi-ali-security-trust-answere/
It remains to be seen whether or not this announcement will somehow
be merged into the debate starting on this thread about
responsibilities in society, state pooling of resources to address
common problems, voluntary interaction and its effectiveness,
etc.
Paul|3.28.08 @ 6:47PM|#
Plus: I can't believe 'homo' is the actual Dutch word for
'gay'.
It's "jomo".
I'm here all week.
|3.28.08 @ 6:48PM|#
Paul - I'd wear the Mohammed one, just 'cause I like Islam less and it'd get more of a reaction.
|3.28.08 @ 6:49PM|#
I spent some time thinking about it. Really thinking about
it. Then, I imagined a scenario. Two tee-shirts-- pretend you have
to wear one of them, publicly. One says "Jesus is a cunt", the
other says "Muhammed is a cunt". Which one do you do you
wear?
In America, it would depend on who I was more pissed at that day.
In the Middle East, bare chested for sure.
Paul|3.28.08 @ 6:52PM|#
Jsub,
I don't yet have my concealed-carry permit (queue comment from
LarryA) so I choose the "Jesus" tee-shirt. Just sayin'. I'm sorry
if that makes me seem 'culturally insensitive' and disrespectful,
but I feel I'm just playing the odds.
Neu Mejican|3.28.08 @ 8:07PM|#
respect every belief other people(s) hold. I have a right to
denounce them, sometimes disrepectfully.
There is, in my view, a meaningful difference between agreeing with
and respecting someone else's beliefs.
If you want to call that respect for their right to hold the
belief, we can go with that vocabulary.
Of course now we get into the question of whether you can separate
a person from their beliefs in a meaningful fashion...
Neu Mejican|3.28.08 @ 8:11PM|#
Paul,
There is a nifty song I have hear recently.
Afrofunk from the 70's...don't know the band or the country, but
the chorus is...
"Leave me my Hate/Got to have my Hate" and the lyrics talk about
the importance of hate in defining one's identity.
Something about the "X is a cunt" T-shirt thought experiment
reminded me of it.
Colin|3.28.08 @ 8:50PM|#
Reason should put the film on their servers.
Here's a chance to take a stand in the cause of freedom where there
actually could be some consequences.
Colin|3.28.08 @ 8:55PM|#
Here's a link to the film on youtube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2TxP-SOA0_0&feature=related
Watch it while you can.
|3.29.08 @ 12:05AM|#
On rights and responsibilities:
Don't we need to separate society and state here? Rights are about
what you can and cannot do legally. Responsibilities are about
social maxims, what many people think a good person should do
without being legally required to do them.
Or in other words, if someone's "right" to do something
automatically negates another's corresponding right of free action
than the former can't actually be called a right. So, Muslims don't
have a right to restrict your criticism of them. But it might be
good manners, and show some wisdom and thoughtfulness, at the very
least, to at least try to not always go around conflating radical
Muslim terror with all of Islam, of which there are many liberal
and moderate varieties.
|3.29.08 @ 12:08AM|#
I thought it was a well-made movie, at least as good as a Michael Moore documentary (which I've been known to enjoy as well).
ed|3.29.08 @ 7:47AM|#
Effective propaganda but nothing new, especially on YouTube. This back-and-forth between extremists on both sides has been taking place in video form for years now. Good for YT for not pulling it. By the way, if you stand for freedom of speech then pull your "speech" after being threatened, you're a pussy. Why bother if you're going to back down at the first whif of danger?
|3.29.08 @ 8:24AM|#
I'm sure Neu Mejican gets all touchy-feely whenever someone denounces or mocks Christiantity.
Neu Mejican|3.29.08 @ 10:54AM|#
Podge,
Seems a relevant quote
In a democracy you own the government - it doesn't own you.
Along with this comes a responsibility to ensure that individual
actions, in the pursuit of a personal destiny, do not threaten the
well-being of others while the pursuit is in progress."
~Frank Zappa
the fez,
Your certainty is comforting I am sure.
http://fezdispenser.com/
|3.29.08 @ 1:29PM|#
On moderate Muslims:
Moderate Muslims DO need to speak out louder than the rest of the
world to combat the Muslim extremists. Why? Because the extremists
view everyone who isn't a Muslim as a kuffir. Therefore anyone
outside of Islam who makes an effort to speak out (and they are
legion) against radical Islam are largely ignored, branded as
bigots and/or mislabeled as racist by radical Muslims. It will take
the multitudes of moderates raising their voices directly against
the radicals in order to reach, and hopefully change, the
radicals.
Pendulum|3.29.08 @ 1:47PM|#
well, maybe, but at some point you have to stop analyzing
the data and actually pick a side, don't you?
I see it as a spectrum, not an all or nothing choice. In the same
way most objectivists allow for minimal government, I want
government to be "minimal plus" - addressing market failures and
some social problems, even if it requires flat out forcing people
on occasion - through paying taxes and operating social programs
which are minimally redistributive. Because I conclude that human
happiness is better served through a "minimal plus" government,
than a merely minimal one, I can't embrace the non-aggression
axiom.
|3.30.08 @ 12:06AM|#
The film is embedded at Nobody's Business. I just watched
it.
http://www.bakelblog.com/nobodys_business/
If anyone is curious, this link shows the size of the Muslim
population by country in Europe. They are about 5.8% in The
Netherlands
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4385768.stm
|3.30.08 @ 12:18AM|#
Neu,
Zappa seems to be using the word 'responsibility' in the way I am
using rights, especially negative rights. But I think there's some
reason to not blur the distinction too much given that in the
common vernacular people use 'responsibilities' to lasso in all
sorts of things that would be problematic as rights, given that
many would automatically negate other people's rights for the same
or similar things. "Society has the responsibility to provide jobs
for minority peoples." If we substitute "right" that would read as
"minority people have the right to a job." That would suggest then
that people not classified as minorities would not have equal
opportunity to a job under the law. Also, an employer would not
have the right to hire and fire someone of his own choosing.
|3.31.08 @ 2:02PM|#
thanks clubmedsux I read that sentence wrong earlier.
I was just particularly struck by the things people say about
Wilder and his movie while defending free speech. I am certainly
guilty of doing that in the interests of not making waves or
offending people. But wonder if it ultimately harms free speech
when we surround our arguments supporting it with so many caveats
of "but I disagree with this person's message"
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245