Marc Gravell

:) no es mi habitación habitual, porque no hablo mucho español más allá de comida / bebida / esencial del hotel (via Google translate)

(I removed a link above, because ^^^; I hope you understand)

（ひどい翻訳のため申し訳ありません） - あなたは、ロボットのユーザーをブロックしています。それらのブロックを解除するようにマークボタンをクリックします。

chat.stackexchange.com/users/-401/localization-bot

meta.stackexchange.com/questions/264085/asdasd

meta.stackexchange.com/questions/264085/asdasd

asdf

meta.stackexchange.com/questions/264085/asdasd\

asd

meta.stackexchange.com/questions/264085/asdasd

working now, @Shokhet @Seth

If a drawing of "arbitrary Arabic male" is fine, but it suddenly becomes "offensive" to you if I put the caption "The Prophet Muhammad" against it, then the problem is with the viewer: you. Only you can address that, and only within yourself. You don't get to control what other people can and can't do within wider laws, and "personal offence" is not something that should become protected by law.

If you find drawings of Muhammad offensive: don't draw one, and don't buy one. Such an image is not inappropriate for any reason - it isn't depicting sex or violence. Heck, we don't even know what Muhammad looked like, other than "probably quite Arabic".

Let's be real here; the "offence" against Muslims that you're talking about here is: words and pictures. The response is often explicit threats - or actual - violence from Muslims; (not all Muslims, but enough). One of these two things is very wrong.

No; simply no. You don't get to be protected from offence. You don't get to be protected from criticism. And you don't get to push your religious restrictions (like: what you personally find offensive) onto other people.

> The idea is that there's a cogent reason not allow systematic offense against a major world religion.

ultimately, because what you have chosen to be sentimental is not something that either can or should be legally enforced

> and not harming the most heartfelt sentiments of billions of people

that is something the adherent needs to figure out for themself; the fact that it is important to them does not give them extra priveleges

> we are talking about religion, that for many of its adherents, is dearer than the life itself

yes: if you keep saying "you aren't allowed do [some thing that you clearly are allowed to do]", then expect people to do it on principle, even if they wouldn't have had any reason to do it otherwise; if Muslims keep saying "don't draw or show pictures of Muhammad", expect lots of pictures of Mumammad - simply because you don't get to control what other people can legitimately do

> systematic offense against muslim beliefs

There is, however, regional cultures of which religion is just one part. That, yes, in some places is very insular and enclave-minded. That says nothing whatsoever of Muslims or Islam in general.

I also think you're conflating Islam and Arab; there are a great many Muslims living perfectly happily and peacefully inside other cultures. It is simply meaningless to say "Muslims by their culture" for such a diverse group. There is no single "Muslim culture".

You are not immune from being offended. Get over it. If you have been prejudiced, abused, or oppressed, then we have something meaningful to discuss! But "that upset me": really no.

@infatuated I didn't say anything about "scientific"; don't put words in my mouth; I said about whether something is subjective; whether it is uniquely. There is no sane way of guarding against mere offence, precisely because it is so massively individual. If I said that I was offended by the mention of carrots, should supermarkets stop selling - or at least advertising - them?

But it remains the case that most if not all of those issues are, at heart, about land grabs and regional politics. Not Islam. Heck, most of the fighting and death has been Muslim-against-Muslim.

As for various wars in Arab areas: please let me know when you get to something that relates to Islam as opposed to national issues. Yes, there are very real problems there, and yes they have been exacerbated by western meddling...

@infatuated "assault", " theft" and "murder" has nothing to do with whether something is "sacred". We aren't placing one set of targets on a different platform. Assault on you is the same as assault on me. That is a terrible comparison.

Unless by "oppression" you mean things like France not liking face covering, and various countries looking at whether removing the foreskin of infants for non-medical reasons is sound, and whether animals should be stunned prior to slaughter. Such oppression. It is almost as though they expect Muslims to abide by the same laws as everyone else! The injustice!

Islam is hardly oppressed; you can freely profess and exercise your beliefs in every secular country except perhaps North Korea, but frankly that isn't really a " secular" country in the first place: it is a personality cult where the president is dead and someone rules in their stead. A terrible place. If you want to talk about oppression: ask how many Islamic states I could openly profess and exercise my atheism in.

@infatuated you keep using this word "sacred". I do not agree the just because you find something sacred, that it should be off-limits to other people. That way madness lies.

@infatuated can you clarify what you mean by "respect" here?

@infatuated "you have an obligation to respect them" - that depends on what you mean by "respect"; I have an obligation not to impede your free exercise of religion (as long as it doesn't contradict any other law); I absolutely do not need to defer to your views, agree with your views, or go out of my way at all in terms of doing or not doing things that "offend" your views, again so long as i do not contradict any other laws. Your "heartfelt beliefs" do not give you a single extra right or privilege. It does not mean other people are restricted in what the can / cannot do.

@infatuated the "slap on your heart" is entirely imaginary; it only exists inside your brain. Equally, it is entirely subjective. You have every right to feel offended; but a: I don't need to feel obliged to avoid your subjective slight, and b: that doesn't make it ok to physically and objectively attack someone. If you physically slap my face, that would be assault and I would hold you responsible, without any violence (unless I had good reason to believe you were going to continue to physically harm me). As a corollary: feel free to offend me! That is absolutely fine. Go for it.

Technically, no: freedom of speech is not limited to the things you would like people to say/ask. That is exactly why it is "freedom" of speech.

ah, only 22 bad rows to clean up; I expected worse

@badp can't say I blame him

yes, but: order-of-magnitude changes in the noise level: not good

@OrigamiRobot yeah, but we love our mods with extra special hugs anyway, so if that is what they want to do: more power to them ;p

I would say, "this is why we can't have nice things", but I worry the system might say it back to me

it became: noise

thanks; k; off to go cleanup...