Canadian Philosophy Professor Raises Tensions

[Fake Boris]

The university moved quickly to stop about 2,000 copies of the newspaper from being distributed on campus.

Sounds like I'm not the only student journalist with censorship problems I say sue the **** out of them

[Fake Boris]

Funny how Asher is quick to defend any moron against a philosopher. The idiots of the story are those who won't even tolerate a cartoon, not the prof.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
Funny how Asher is quick to defend any moron against a philosopher.

Ehrm, it is common that equals seek equals company

[C0ckney]

much as it pains me to say it (), agathon is 100% right here.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
Funny how Asher is quick to defend any moron against a philosopher. The idiots of the story are those who won't even tolerate a cartoon, not the prof.

But that's not the point -- the point is you should know better than to stir sh*t without any benefit. This prof didn't encourage debate, he just pissed people off.

If he wanted to encourage debate, he could hold an open lecture/forum like the UofT and other universities have.

This isn't about censoring him, it's using common sense to stop being offensive and still get a discussion out of it.

In this sense, the professor was just plain offensive. He has a known opinion against religions, and he posted an offensive cartoon that has started riots and protests around the world on his door without any context.

That is not asking for intelligent discussion, it's trolling.

The people that don't understand the difference are, quite simply, naive.

[Asher]

Originally posted by BlackCat
You are quite naive - who do you think that are most active in such activities - the radicals or the moderate ?

At my school, it was the moderates that engaged in discussions. The radicals were too busy protesting elsewhere, namely at profs like the one in the OP.

There is a huge difference between offensive trolls without context (what the prof in this case did), and intelligent discussion and discourse and debate.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Asher

But that's not the point -- the point is you should know better than to stir sh*t without any benefit. This prof didn't encourage debate, he just pissed people off.

If he wanted to encourage debate, he could hold an open lecture/forum like the UofT and other universities have.

This isn't about censoring him, it's using common sense to stop being offensive and still get a discussion out of it.

In this sense, the professor was just plain offensive. He has a known opinion against religions, and he posted an offensive cartoon that has started riots and protests around the world on his door without any context.

That is not asking for intelligent discussion, it's trolling.

The people that don't understand the difference are, quite simply, naive.

Ohboy - didn't know you were that naive. Are you saying that right of free spech is worth nothing ? That it isn't worth fighting for ?

What you are asking for is suppresing free thought and forbidding discussion of any subject some religious society might find offending.

It is actually these religious organisations that are offending because they try to prevent other people from discussing what they claim is eternal truth.

[Asher]

Are you saying that right of free spech is worth nothing ? That it isn't worth fighting for ?

There are limits. That's why you can't yell "FIRE" in a crowded theatre, that's why you're not allowed to post pornography wherever you want, that's why you're not allowed to be naked all the time in public, that's why Pro-Life demonstrators are not allowed to post pictures of aborted fetuses around campus to "provoke discussion and debate".

There are limits to free speech.

Further still, I'm not saying he should legally not be allowed to do what he did. I'm saying it was poor judgement.

Please, just go away. Every time you try to enter a debate you don't understand the basics.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Asher

At my school, it was the moderates that engaged in discussions. The radicals were too busy protesting elsewhere, namely at profs like the one in the OP.

There is a huge difference between offensive trolls without context (what the prof in this case did), and intelligent discussion and discourse and debate.

I think this is the third time I'm going to call you naive - when are you going to learn ?

You are quite rigth, the moderates enter a discussion while the radicals do other stuff. Exactly what happens here - instead of discussing the subject they attacked the professor and his door.

[Asher]

Originally posted by BlackCat
I think this is the third time I'm going to call you naive - when are you going to learn ?

You are quite rigth, the moderates enter a discussion while the radicals do other stuff. Exactly what happens here - instead of discussing the subject they attacked the professor and his door.

Because the problem was with the methodolgy -- his way was offensive, not one asking for discussion.

You can stop calling me naive whenever you can figure out what the difference is between trolling and asking for discussion.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Asher

There are limits. That's why you can't yell "FIRE" in a crowded theatre, that's why you're not allowed to post pornography wherever you want, that's why you're not allowed to be naked all the time in public, that's why Pro-Life demonstrators are not allowed to post pictures of aborted fetuses around campus to "provoke discussion and debate".

There are limits to free speech.

Further still, I'm not saying he should legally not be allowed to do what he did. I'm saying it was poor judgement.

Please, just go away. Every time you try to enter a debate you don't understand the basics.

Not one of your examples has anything to do with asking questions to a religion, wich is what these drawings are doing.

Asher, why don't you change your name to Chamberlain ?

Considering I'm living in a country where there is a high risk that some idiotic person might do an insane suicidal attack I really don't want to stay outside the debate, so you have to live with my comments.

Besides, understanding basics, youi really are my main source of fun because you so clearly displays that you actually never have a clue about what is the basics

[Asher]

Originally posted by BlackCat
Not one of your examples has anything to do with asking questions to a religion, wich is what these drawings are doing.

I'm not talking about the drawings, I'm talking about the act of a professor posting content he knows to be offensive to a sizable portion of the school's students on his door without context, explanation, or even a request for discussion.

It was irresponsible and bad judgement on his behalf. Clearly, he didn't get intelligent discussion about the cartoons themself, he just pissed off a lot of people. And that is my point.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Asher

I'm not talking about the drawings, I'm talking about the act of a professor posting content he knows to be offensive to a sizable portion of the school's students on his door without context, explanation, or even a request for discussion.

It was irresponsible and bad judgement on his behalf. Clearly, he didn't get intelligent discussion about the cartoons themself, he just pissed off a lot of people. And that is my point.

Wrong. Unless he kept it as secret lessons he would have the exactly the same reactions.

It is a difficult question, but it has to be asked. These drawings has made it and now it is out in the open. I really don't think that it was the intention of JP when they published it - it was supposed to be a part of local danish debate, but it has grown. As it is, the question has been asked and there are no way back - has we free speech or not - has religious societies the right to dictate what is allowed to be said or not. This question isn't one that you can put into some philosopical debate forum when it now is out in the open.

[Asher]

Originally posted by BlackCat
Wrong. Unless he kept it as secret lessons he would have the exactly the same reactions.

Seeing as other universities across Canada have shown them and discussd them, but done that with tact, I don't think you know what you're talking about, as usual.

The problem isn't with showing the cartoons. It's how they were presented, and by who they were presented by.

[Elok]

Well, BlackCat, thanks to geniuses like this prof, some kind of major conflict is all but inevitable. My recommended course of action would be to behave like a sane and rational human being, stop riling up the mobs as a point of principle, and go for damage control. With luck, we could still convince at least some of the Muslim world to calm down.

Y'see, up until this point, the "war on terror" has basically just been the US against some radicals, with the rest of Islam not bothering to stop said radicals because they think the US deserves what it gets. Now, however, we're doing a beautiful job of providing them with propaganda, which gets the common folk stirred up against us, as opposed to sullen and indifferent. Aside from wiping our butts with the Koran and sending it to them, I can't think of many ways to offend them more.

Some of the leaders of the Muslim world do appear to be trying--al-Sistani in Iraq, various clerics in Lebanon, and all the secular leaders with the brains to realize what a real all-out war would do to their countries. However, we're not giving them much to work with, and many of these leaders are standing on the edge of a knife here. If they appear to side with us too strongly, they'll be conceived of as our tools and buy themselves an insurrection, so all they can do is nervously appeal for mercy and peace in the name of Islam. One of the mobs has already attacked clerics that tried to stop them. This situation is not going to last long with AQ and other extremist firebrands on the one side and our Western clowns on the other.

And you, or we, can't win by force. If the whole Muslim world gets mad--everything from Morocco to Indonesia, over a billion people, plus extreme elements within our own countries--I don't think any degree of conventional warfare will settle them. Are you going to empty your countries to occupy theirs, or just nuke them? Or try to blast them back to the stone age with normal bombs and then wall off your borders?