Muslim Groups Attempt to Censor Wikipedia

masood75 said:
Yes I do. Problem is that if people voice an objection accept it, try to accommodate one and another and find a solution. I really don't see the why the need to get hot under the collar and stoop to such low levels and to begin insulting each other.

Why is it that when Muslims object we get called fundamentalist or terrorists, but when Jews or Christians object they are called devout Christians or orthodox Jews?
Click to expand...

Once again for the slow:

You do not have the right not to be offended

or in more colloquial english:

If you don't like it, tough ****.
 
masood75 said:
Really, is the internet really a western invention? Go to silicone and see how many Indians and ppl from the east are in the industry. GO Figure
Click to expand...

Considering the protocol the internet is run on (TCP/IP) was invented by the US military, I'd say it was kinda invented by the west. And sure there are a lot of indians and people from the east involved in the industry today, just as there are lots of South Africans involved in the industry today, but that doesn't mean they had anything to do with its inception.
 
Kasyx said:
Considering the protocol the internet is run on (TCP/IP) was invented by the US military, I'd say it was kinda invented by the west. And sure there are a lot of indians and people from the east involved in the industry today, just as there are lots of South Africans involved in the industry today, but that doesn't mean they had anything to do with its inception.
Click to expand...

exactly.
 
masood75 said:
Why is it that concepts and designs and ideas can belong to a person or a company, but not Religious icons and Symbols.
Click to expand...

Because stating that your religion OWNS your Gods, Prophets, Bumpkins and Imaginary Geese is considered BLASPHEMY. Surely you would know that staking ownership of a Prophet so tight-arsed he doesn't even want his picture shown would probably do nothing but piss him off?
 
masood75 said:
Why is it that concepts and designs and ideas can belong to a person or a company, but not Religious icons and Symbols.
Click to expand...

Ah so the image is trademarked? or Copyright? or patented.

1. Even in cases where this things have been done, there is still such a concept as fair usage.

2. Not withstanding Trademarks and Copyrights fall away after a period of time.

3. Also something cannot be trademarked or patented if it's deemed to be prior art. (EG try and patent the wheel, you may be able to register your patent, but you'll never enforce it)
 
Kasyx said:
Considering the protocol the internet is run on (TCP/IP) was invented by the US military, I'd say it was kinda invented by the west. And sure there are a lot of indians and people from the east involved in the industry today, just as there are lots of South Africans involved in the industry today, but that doesn't mean they had anything to do with its inception.
Click to expand...
Nuff said.
 
Kasyx said:
Considering the protocol the internet is run on (TCP/IP) was invented by the US military, I'd say it was kinda invented by the west. And sure there are a lot of indians and people from the east involved in the industry today, just as there are lots of South Africans involved in the industry today, but that doesn't mean they had anything to do with its inception.
Click to expand...

Not with standing that India is mostly Hindu, and the Middle Eastern country with the most advanced Hi-tech sector is Israel.
 
masood75 said:
Really, is the internet really a western invention? Go to silicone and see how many Indians and ppl from the east are in the industry. GO Figure
Click to expand...

I am in the industry and well familiar with the makeup. Indians are cheap labour comparatively, and so are the Japanese. I said nothing about who is currently jumping on the bandwagon for money, I only said it is a western invention :rolleyes: If you dont like it, dont use it.

Like I have already said, Islam does not own mohammed. Christianity does not own Jesus. I can be an avid follower of Jesus or Mohammed and care less about the religions that "lay claim" to them. And I want any pics that are available, i dont care if they are real or not.
 
I love the one slashdot comment:

jimw@wiki:/var/www/wikipedia/wiki>tar cz * |uuencode /dev/stdout |mail -s "Just in case" [email protected]
Click to expand...
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/02/07/1651256

These pictures aren't so bad! Here [wikimedia.org] he is betting his followers that he can slide all the way down a railing without falling off. Here [wikimedia.org] is his senior picture. Here [wikimedia.org] he is preparing to be tossed into the air on a blanket. Here [wikimedia.org] he is on fire (about to be Super Saiyan 2). Here [wikimedia.org] he is full blown Super Saiyan 3 complete with human headed horse. Here [wikimedia.org] he is at an Ozzy Ozborne concert (far right). Last but not least, here's what you'd have to print to be murdered in Europe [wikimedia.org].
Click to expand...

lol
 
These are pretty interesting:

Did you get all those from Mohammad's MySpace page?

Seriously, it's important that we realize that religion makes people nuts. Of course, there are degrees of nuttiness, and certainly marching around in front of Women's Health Clinics and screaming at young women going in to get a pap smear and throwing lamb's blood at them isn't quite as bad as strapping a bomb to yourself and blowing folks up, but crazy is crazy. I think we really have to try our best to encourage people to keep their religious insanity to themselves and to their own little groups. The early Christians had the right idea, meeting in secret in caves. If only we could get the contemporary ones to follow their lead.

Judging from the results of the recent presidential primaries, it looks like the wave of militant religious has finally crested and is now starting to recede. It can only make life better for the rest of us.

As always, the best tool is ridicule. Whether Tom Cruise or Mormons or Ted Haggard or "evangelicals" or fanatic muslims, ridicule is the key. Somehow, it seems like all forms of political correctness have been beaten back except when it comes to religion. For religion, you are absolute required to be politically correct, especially if you're talking about a rich, white, religious person. How silly.
Click to expand...

and

Ok, muslims...time to get with the 21st century. It is ok to have your religion, and rules, but, they do NOT apply to everyone else in the world. No religion gets "respect". People can freely show insensitivity to Christians, Catholics, Jews, Buddists, Flying Spaghetti Monster worshipers....(although none of the mentioned will try to blow you up or cut your head off if you do so).

So, get with the times. You are not special in this world. Geez...I get so tired of very group being so freakin' sensitive, and whining all the time that we're not thinking of their feelings.

People, get a grip, quit wearing your feelings and your religion on your sleeves. Man up...get on with life.
Click to expand...

Slashdot again
 
It's not so much in our culture to mock fundamentalists as it's in our culture to expose idiocy. And regardless of Islamic testament, this is idiotic.
 
Excuse me for coming in late and skipping most posts, my opinion... I'm more worried with christians (me being one) not doing enough to stop hollywood making blasphemous movies about my God , than the picture on wikipedia. I think we bend over way too far when discussing our own religeon, while they take no **** from nobody
 
Wynand said:
Excuse me for coming in late and skipping most posts, my opinion... I'm more worried with christians (me being one) not doing enough to stop hollywood making blasphemous movies about my God , than the picture on wikipedia. I think we bend over way too far when discussing our own religeon, while they take no **** from nobody
Click to expand...

For the late comer, a recap:

You do not have the right not to be offended.
 
I've just read this thread and bwana's short and sweet comment stood out the most, haven't you people heard of something called tolerance?

If Islam forbids pictures of Muhammad then why not just accept it and move along? Yes this wiki had pictures up and it has a right to put up whatever it wants, as long as it's accurate but the simple fact is, why cause k@k when you know it's offensive to Muslims, just seems a bit retarded.

/me awaits all the comments stating how 'retarded' Islamic laws are. :rolleyes:
 
feo said:
I've just read this thread and bwana's short and sweet comment stood out the most, haven't you people heard of something called tolerance?

If Islam forbids pictures of Muhammad then why not just accept it and move along? Yes this wiki had pictures up and it has a right to put up whatever it wants, as long as it's accurate but the simple fact is, why cause k@k when you know it's offensive to Muslims, just seems a bit retarded.

/me awaits all the comments stating how 'retarded' Islamic laws are. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

You are totally missing the point: why should wikipedia be governed by what muslim's think is tolerable?

If they don't like it, they are free not to use it. Why should they push their (retarded) beliefs on other people?

The corollary of your argument is "non-muslims don't have a problem with pictures of mohammed so muslims should just accept it and move on"
 
Tolerance works both ways. The fact that he played a role of importance in the history of our world makes him extremely relevant to all humanity. A painting of him is neither offensive nor derogatory, yet it plays an important role in forming a perception of who the man may have been.

It should not be treated as a breach of tolerance, at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X