LOL, ati there is a name for blogs that do not allow comments…. websites.

Hear hear for Paul Kagame!!

Dude, I beg to differ about the Cartoons. Does freedom and responsibility mean that you are bound by beliefs that you do not subscribe to? Does the fact that Muslims do not believe in depicting their prophet mean that I, as a christian, or atheist should be bound by the same? And P.s, the ‘sto stop we have run out of virgins’ was funny. Ala!

Given the time difference between countries and continents, this “I was first” thing doesn’t count. Unless we modify it, in which case I am first from the small very cold town of Amherst, MA.

Much more satisfying.

“floundering mishmash of self seekers”–only M could so capture the picture of fish out of water who believe they are lions (though, as part 2–one of my new favorites, I have many, claims, it’s all a simple case of oranges turning into and wanting to be bananas; where they used to roll, now they flounder).

I blame guess for the parentheses within parentheses habit; she set a bad example.

Na uh M, that is tantamount to trying to convert me into the religion or belief in question! The having sex with children is a purely moral issue!! It is not even a freedom. Here, we are talking about freedom of speech, and religion, and expression…etc. Any freedom, once limited is no longer a freedom. A freedom should be absolute!!

Take the media for example…. If say a politician uses their power to pull themselves out of critical dissection, is that not curtailing a freedom of the media where they have a right to enjoy the said freedom?

And the price for that freedom is bending to the admission that by practicing freedoms of speech, religion tec, you will annoy some, offend others and piss others off. That does not give them a right to beat the daylights out of you, and destroy your property etc…!!!

I am sorry, this is no way intended to offend anyone but I still would make no apologies for those cartoons. The fact that you can say what you want means that people should be prepared for the offence and yes, the repercussions that comes with expressing such a freedom or any other freedom for that matter.

And, I do not to offend. Purely a differnce of opinion here.

I think Uncle Ben Parker said it best, “with great power comes great responsibility” and one of my chem teachers also said for every reaction there is a reaction.So for those who drew the cartoons they should have known that something would happen but I also echo M, that doesn’t validate the muslims reaction to them.Other then that enjoying all the questions peeps have come up with……

To: acolyte .. i know your teacher did not say “to every reaction there is a reaction”
i think what you meant to say was “to every action there is a reaction”

On the cartoon issue, it makes little sense to riot over cartoons and then keep quiet when innocent people are being killed in Muslim countries. Personally i think the whole thing showed Muslim intolerence and reinforced the idea that a large number of people have about Muslims.

You should see the things that are written about Christians and Jews. violence only breeds more violence and each time i see an article on Muslim riots over the cartoons, i wonder how many of the rioters actually saw the cartoons. Besides we live in a world where everything is satirised, from Jesus to the pope to the Queen, I dont have to stop eating pork to show that i respect Jews or bow infront of the altar in a catholic church to show i respect catholics.

The world has changed, move with the times or get left behind, even religions and faiths undergo changes. Other than that, M , where are the questions i asked you? still loving your blog yo!

Freedom doesn’t release one from consequences. Only teenagers believe this.

Freedom properly defined is the ability to do a deed and THEN take responsibility for that action. Freedom without consequences is plain non-existent, Kibaki is learning this. Much to my amusement.

M would earn more if each of us who commented left a penny per word. Blog ads make pretty much zilch.

On the cartoons, as I explain in my very eloquent posting (what?I can’t steal readers from you?), they fall into a long history of the West using “freedom” to justify racist acts. Freedom of speech is about the ability to engage political issues without repercussion from governments, at least in its original instantiation.

It’s not a license to be an idiot.

Smarmy! Haven’t been here in a while M.
I was pleasantly surprised.
Still..smarmy!
Cheers.
I think your readers have grown with you.
Had a chance to read from archives with a friend.
(posts had a great deal of humour way back when)

“Freedom of speech is about the ability to engage political issues without repercussion from governments, at least in its original instantiation. ”

The above statement by Keguro; brings me back to my point… Freedom of Speech does not exist at least in this day and age; it may have existed in the past, but not now.

You all got the Dick Cheney story all wrong, what had happened was, he was told by Mr. Bush that he would have to join the military and go to Iraq, he was instructed to practise with the quail, but he got pissed off and did what he had to do to prove he was capable.

I see am not the only one with things against roundabouts. I have a few friends who get intimately acquanted with them after downing liquids in brown bottles. Maybe if they were not there traffic would move much faster. Stress on the MAYBE part.

On the famous cartoons; lots of human blood has been spilt throughout history in the name of religious beliefs. This was one more excuse to do so.

Totally unrelated to the discussion above. Pole:) Just wanted to say thanks for heads up on pxs-mail form, M, – lots of people have been caught with this one. Much appreciated!

Also, it took me a while to understand how and when I had become your groupie :)

“When you hear all the raging debates you realise that the core issue is never really about freedom.”

To disagree, respectfully, freedom is the core issue.

Perhaps unfortunately, this incredibly malleable word, freedom, co-exists in a constant state of tension with the institutions and structures that allow it to emerge. Put otherwise, the exercise of personal freedom, no matter how defined, must bear an antagonistic relationship to structures that, paradoxically, enable it, structures such as the State.

That unbridled freedom cannot exist allows us to live together as and in communities. Freud bases his entire theory of human development on this premise. You point to the law’s inability to judge morality, only criminality. In which case, I’d simply ask how we develop notions of criminality if not through recourse to moral frameworks, religious and otherwise.

Law continually engages different traditions of morality. It has to. We might not take Kant’s Categorical Imperative as the basis for contemporary legal theory (a stance I’d debate any day), but we do invoke morality as and when we assign judgment.

Indeed, the current debates over reparation, holocaust denial, abortion, and gay marriage are precisely exercises in legislating morality. Now, whether the law can redress moral forms of injury through material forms of compensation is a whole other issue.

= GOOD!