Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ss123)
    Pakistan's status as a third world country has nothing to with the Facebook ban. Facebook is only accessible to- and used by - the upper classes. The other 80% of the people are too busy putting two round meals on the table and dealing with the excessive heat and loadshedding. They dont even have electricity- forget having a computer and access to a life that can be chronicled on facebook.
    WHo said this??
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ajtiesto)
    Have you read what you've just posted.

    Are you a muslim? If not then i find your first point quite rude and offensive. I'm no muslim but from what i know Muhammed is an important figure in a muslim persons life. As for the second point i don't blame muslims for taking to the streets. Drawing of a bomb on Muhammeds head, way to go :rolleyes:

    You obviously have a problem with muslims by the sounds of it you make me quite sick at lack of respect you have even you're against religion. Wouldn't surprise me if you thought they were all terrorists. Blood boil when you see a muslim does it?

    Man i am glad i wasn't raised to hate. Your tone of hate is really scary btw, for a girl!
    homosexuals? apostates? cartoonists?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ajtiesto)
    Have you read what you've just posted.

    Are you a muslim? If not then i find your first point quite rude and offensive. I'm no muslim but from what i know Muhammed is an important figure in a muslim persons life. As for the second point i don't blame muslims for taking to the streets. Drawing of a bomb on Muhammeds head, way to go :rolleyes:

    You obviously have a problem with muslims by the sounds of it you make me quite sick at lack of respect you have even you're against religion. Wouldn't surprise me if you thought they were all terrorists. Blood boil when you see a muslim does it?

    Man i am glad i wasn't raised to hate. Your tone of hate is really scary btw, for a girl!
    Are you going to address the point, or just make random assumptions about my life?

    It's clear that it was not "peoples' obsession with Muslims and Muhammad" that led to the rioting (as you claimed), because only a small newspaper with a few cartoonists actually printed the stuff. It's pretty obvious who blew it out of proportion after that, and you really haven't said anything to address my point except "wow you're insulting". Grow up.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kreuzuerk)
    No, instead you simply seek to curtail the liberties of others and attempt to limit their freedom of expression.
    People are so obessessed with freedom of expression. Maybe we should go out on the streets and start abusing people eh?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Diaz89)
    Yes I understand but I'm refering from a religious point of view. I'd get into more trouble with God for allowing facebook to benifit from my respective nation's audience (adverstiment etc) while at the same time it offends his Prophet than blocking some party's website.
    Yes, but my point is that most nation's legal systems are not built around the vague sensibilities of one individual. Somebody could equally feel as strongly as you about a parties website - why should your personal preferance be dictate the way the law is dealt - bit arrogant isn't it?

    I personally don't believe in God but I get offended by a number of different things, why should the state ban things on the whims and opinions of individuals like me or you?

    Thankfully though liberty will win, there was a time in the UK when similar acts were taken on the grounds of blasphemy. 100-200 years hence Pakistan will look back on such a day and chuckle.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Moe Lester)
    Forgive me, but I fail to understand what exactly you are arguing. From what I have read your argument swings from an interesting (but disagreeable) post-modernist argument, to attacking secularism, and then claiming that the Pakistani state is in the wrong (which it so obviously is). You also seem to be happy denying (I may be wrong - but this is what it looks like) the rights of democracy and so forth to the third world - something which is always easy to do from the comfort of an advanced and wealthy democracy.
    I was arguing about the infantile belief in 'inalienable rights' innate to all which are accepted by all and should be enforced universally. :rolleyes:

    I made no reference in my argument to secularism, denying democracy, or criticising this decision of the Pakistani State (though I did make a side-comment doing that).

    (Original post by Moe Lester)
    I personally don't believe in God but I get offended by a number of different things, why should the state ban things on the whims and opinions of individuals like me or you?
    Exactly what I was arguing with Democracy.

    Though he advocated forcing certain 'rights' on others (thus also denying certain liberties) on the whims which he finds agreeable.

    There was a time in the UK when similar acts were taken on the grounds of blasphemy.
    Interestingly, not more than a couple years ago the blasphemy laws were still in place.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ss123)
    yes, because it is the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, and not the Democratic Republic of Pakistan
    Yes and that's wrong, what's your point?
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by birdsong1)
    Are you going to address the point, or just make random assumptions about my life?

    It's clear that it was not "peoples' obsession with Muslims and Muhammad" that led to the rioting (as you claimed), because only a small newspaper with a few cartoonists actually printed the stuff. From what I can tell, my assessment is entirely accurate, and you really haven't said anything except "wow you're insulting". Grow up.
    It's not an assumption, it is quite clear from your posts and tone not only in this thread but other threads you have a problem with all muslims.

    The cartoonists drew a cartoon of Muhammed with a bomb on his head. What did you expect, one big party? :rolleyes:

    Don't tell me to grow up, your the one with the hatred not me.

    Are you some kind BNP babe or something?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ajtiesto)
    People are so obessessed with freedom of expression. Maybe we should go out on the streets and start abusing people eh?
    There is a clear difference between abuse of an individual and then offering pictorial representation of a historical character, which critiques a concept and singles out no one living person for attack.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ajtiesto)
    People are so obessessed with freedom of expression. Maybe we should go out on the streets and start abusing people eh?
    sure whatever. just dont set them on fire.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    If anyone's offended by the content on Facebook it's up to the individual whether he wants to continue to use the site or not?

    How can the government justify a blanket ban for something like this? Sure people may find the cartoons offensive and that's perfectly understandable but equally there must be thousands of others who use facebook simply for social networking and the choice should be up to them whether they want to use it or not? The fact that the choice has been taken out of their hands for something which is, in the grand scale of things, trivial is what I object to.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ajtiesto)
    It's not an assumption, it is quite clear from your posts and tone not only in this thread but other threads you have a problem with all muslims.

    The cartoonists drew a cartoon of Muhammed with a bomb on his head. What did you expect, one big party? :rolleyes:

    Don't tell me to grow up, your the one with the hatred not me.

    Are you some kind BNP babe or something?
    uh oh. shes getting out the race card.
    have we had islamophobia yet?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ajtiesto)
    It's not an assumption, it is quite clear from your posts and tone not only in this thread but other threads you have a problem with all muslims.

    The cartoonists drew a cartoon of Muhammed with a bomb on his head. What did you expect, one big party? :rolleyes:

    Don't tell me to grow up, your the one with the hatred not me.

    Are you some kind BNP babe or something?
    When some random newspaper prints an offensive cartoon, I do not expect the Danish embassy to be torched.

    Are you misguided, or just an idiot?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DJkG.1)
    I was arguing about the infantile belief in 'inalienable rights' innate to all which are accepted by all and should be enforced universally. :rolleyes:
    So now you are claiming that one's capacity for/right to self-determination is not inalienable?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Moe Lester)
    Yes and that's wrong, what's your point?
    This quote from you comes to mind:

    something which is always easy to [say] from the comfort of an advanced and wealthy democracy
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DJkG.1)
    I was arguing about the infantile belief in 'inalienable rights' innate to all which are accepted by all and should be enforced universally. :rolleyes:

    I made no reference in my argument to secularism, denying democracy, or criticising this decision of the Pakistani State (though I did make a side-comment doing that).

    Exactly what I was arguing with Democracy.

    Though he advocated forcing certain 'rights' on others (thus also denying certain liberties) on the whims which he finds agreeable.

    Interestingly, not more than a couple years ago the blasphemy laws were still in place.
    What! Nobody was suggesting 'forcing' anything! Show me where with a quote where anyone on this thread claimed people should be forced to accept more modern, pleasent and civilised values...

    Interestingly, what liberties would be denyed?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nihility)
    yes. and we are all agreed thats a bad thing. yes?
    Muslims are raised to believe that religion is above all things, including politics. Islam, as a religion, places great emphasizes on human rights (if anyone wants to argue, read the quran for just 5 minutes in English, and you can form your opinion.). So to those born Muslims, religion is above democracy, since Islam, if properly followed, virtually guarantees "democracy" (in terms of freedom of speech etc)
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DJkG.1)
    This quote from you comes to mind:
    What on earth are you talking about?
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nihility)
    homosexuals? apostates? cartoonists?
    Don't be an idiot. Just becuase i disagree with the drawing of Muhammed with a bomb on his head implies i hate cartoonists. I certainly do not hate the other two. I disagree with homoseuxality but i DO NOT hate gays. It's not my problem what people do in their private lives.

    Now my turn, hate muslims?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Moe Lester)
    Yes and that's wrong, what's your point?
    i was answering nihility. thats my point. read the whole argument before stating an assertive: "thats wrong".
 
 
 
Poll
The new Gillette ad. Is it:
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.