"Innocence of Muslims" Filmmaker Likely Doesn't Exist, Film May Not Exist

[Elok]

Rushdie? Intention counts, in my book. He didn't write it purely to annoy them; that was simply an inevitable side effect of a statement he made with a distinct purpose in mind. Whatever the hell that was. Like I said, I never read the book, but I assume it's more than a list of bizarre scatological claims about Mohammad.

[Elok]

The next question of course is how do we determine if something has artistic, educational, or some other redeeming feature without actually seeing it...

I'm on limited bandwidth here. Feel free to watch it and tell me if it's anything but Ha Ha The Prophet Went Down On Jewish Grannies.

[Wezil]

You didn't answer the question.

[Elok]

We go by general opinion. As I've never heard anyone who saw the film suggest that it had any merit whatever--indeed, they all say it's badly made and almost criminally puerile--I'm comfortable making that assumption and not too prepared to expose myself to a purportedly atrocious movie. I realize, of course, that for such a weighty and consequential discussion as this one we're having now I really should have absolutely flawless information...

[Wezil]

Okay. So a film/book can be released at which point we will form an opinion of its merit. Meanwhile the rioters will riot (regardless of merit) but it will be acceptable collateral damage if the film/book seems reasonable to us...?

It's okay to provoke them so long as you are artful about it?

[Elok]

If the provocation is incidental to the main message or intended purpose, you're less culpable or worthy of derision, yes. There's some purpose being served. This is true whether they riot or not. For example, Darwin publishes Origin of Species, Christians get offended, but Darwin's not blameworthy because he was trying to advance scientific knowledge and the offense was a side effect. By contrast, YouTube user SatanSephiroth666 posts a video of him pooping on a crucifix. Some (much smaller) number of Christians get offended, and it's fair to say he's something of a dick because the offense serves no purpose other than being obnoxious. He's just a dumb troll.

[Uncle Sparky]

Question: what is worse to a rabid muslim, a picture of Mohammad or child pornography?

What is worse to a Catholic priest - a picture of Jesus or child porn?

[Kidlicious]

Yes Kid. We've been through this.

You Christians should be more violent. Fewer bad things will be said about you.

Let's say that you and I know a crazy person who is dangerous. Then I say something to him to make him want to kill you. That's just fine with you because they guy is crazy?

[Wezil]

You need to work on that analogy Kid.

[Kidlicious]

Yeah, just like I thought, troll.

[Wezil]

Yep. Present me with a bad anology. There's no better way to verify trollhood.

[kentonio]

In general, that's correct for the UK at least: Mark Thompson: BBC director general admits Christianity gets tougher treatment

Did you bother actually reading his reasoning or just see the headline and get excited? He made the point that as the majority religion we have a reasonable expectation that Christianity will be fairly broad shouldered whereas religions followed mainly by minority groups are much more likely to feel a sense of persecution when critisized by an organization that is also our state broadcaster.

I'm speaking of this particular case only, of course. I don't think Rushdie's fatwa was his fault in any way, for example, because he predated this long trend of absurd overreaction, endangered none but himself, and ostensibly wrote The Satanic Verses with some kind of artistic purpose in mind. I haven't read the book so I wouldn't know.

I haven't read it (chiefly because I kept being told it was a tedious crock of ****) but from what I understand it was a fairly heavyweight artistic work, not just a 'lets piss off Islam' diatribe.

[Wezil]

It's good to know our art and amusement is a good enough reason to have them riot. At least you favour some exceptions.

[Elok]

I don't see the artistic merit as the primary factor, but the intention. It can be generalized still more broadly. So:

Person A kills a lot of young eagles by using DDT to kill mosquitoes in an anti-malaria campaign. He's trying to save human lives, so he's not a total jerk, even though he's causing a lot of harm in the process. Meanwhile, person B kills a lot of young eagles by going on a "nest-tipping" outing, chiefly because he enjoys killing things. Person B, I feel comfortable saying, is a total jerk. Sincerely good intentions go a long way.

[DinoDoc]

Did you bother actually reading his reasoning ...

Yes. The whole line of reasoning views Muslims as spastic 2 year olds prone to tantrums rather than as actual human beings. As Wezil said, Christians aren't violent enough to have people tip toe around them.