I really don’t give a rat’s arse as to why (some) Muslims are offended, upset, homicidal or very annoyed because of depictions of Mohammed.
John Moralessays
[meta]
RJW, is that because knowledge is power, and you repudiate power?
(I now know that there is at least one thing with important consequences about which you have no curiosity)
RJWsays
@2 John Morale,
Yeah, sure, ‘knowledge is power’, anyone who wants to, is welcome to do a PhD in theology or memorise all the ‘Harry Potter’ scripts, listen to a Jehovah’s Witness explain why they reject blood transfusions, or listen to any religious obsession that wastes the intellect. Knowledge of Islamic superstitions would be useful to the security services of course, but why should citizens of secular states care?
John Moralessays
RJW, you’re still thinking in terms of caring, whereas you should be thinking in terms of being informed — but, in terms of caring, I grant I care about being more rather than less informed about all sorts of stuff, and not purely on the basis of its potential utility.
In passing, I think that your comparison of laborious endeavours with watching a short video is somewhat exaggerated.
Holmssays
I suspect RJW does not care about your disdain for their lack of interest. I think it worth noting that your chosen reasons for being interested in a particular topic are not necessarily shared by others, and that you have no standing to tell people what their criteria should be.
For my part, I too have no interest as to why most muslims objec to to depictions of Mohammed; the obvious and shallow ‘because their interpretation of Islam forbids it’ is explanation enough. The matter is, in my view, most compellingly argued on the grounds of freedom of expression, which renders the origin of their proscription moot. Especially since I also object to special treatment under law along religious lines.
sonofrojblakesays
why should citizens of secular states care?
Sun-Tzu said it: know your enemy.
RJWsays
@5 Holms
“The matter is, in my view, most compellingly argued on the grounds of freedom of expression, which renders the origin of their proscription moot.”
Yes, precisely.
@6 sonofrojblake
“Sun-Tzu said it: know your enemy.”
Yes, but he was a general, understanding the enemy is a prerequisite for success, that’s why I made the comment about security services. I, as a citizen, have no interest in incoherent religious “explanations”, justifications or special pleadings.
I really don’t give a rat’s arse as to why (some) Muslims are offended, upset, homicidal or very annoyed because of depictions of Mohammed.
[meta]
RJW, is that because knowledge is power, and you repudiate power?
(I now know that there is at least one thing with important consequences about which you have no curiosity)
@2 John Morale,
Yeah, sure, ‘knowledge is power’, anyone who wants to, is welcome to do a PhD in theology or memorise all the ‘Harry Potter’ scripts, listen to a Jehovah’s Witness explain why they reject blood transfusions, or listen to any religious obsession that wastes the intellect. Knowledge of Islamic superstitions would be useful to the security services of course, but why should citizens of secular states care?
RJW, you’re still thinking in terms of caring, whereas you should be thinking in terms of being informed — but, in terms of caring, I grant I care about being more rather than less informed about all sorts of stuff, and not purely on the basis of its potential utility.
In passing, I think that your comparison of laborious endeavours with watching a short video is somewhat exaggerated.
I suspect RJW does not care about your disdain for their lack of interest. I think it worth noting that your chosen reasons for being interested in a particular topic are not necessarily shared by others, and that you have no standing to tell people what their criteria should be.
For my part, I too have no interest as to why most muslims objec to to depictions of Mohammed; the obvious and shallow ‘because their interpretation of Islam forbids it’ is explanation enough. The matter is, in my view, most compellingly argued on the grounds of freedom of expression, which renders the origin of their proscription moot. Especially since I also object to special treatment under law along religious lines.
Sun-Tzu said it: know your enemy.
@5 Holms
“The matter is, in my view, most compellingly argued on the grounds of freedom of expression, which renders the origin of their proscription moot.”
Yes, precisely.
@6 sonofrojblake
“Sun-Tzu said it: know your enemy.”
Yes, but he was a general, understanding the enemy is a prerequisite for success, that’s why I made the comment about security services. I, as a citizen, have no interest in incoherent religious “explanations”, justifications or special pleadings.