Everybody draw the Holocaust day.

[plekhanov]

So there are rules that can be broken, sowhere is your outrage at such restriction on liberty in light of other images being allowed to remain?

That is the hypocracy I speak of.

It is no more hypocritical to accept that privately run internet forums have rules than it is to accept rules of conduct (be they implicit or explicit) when you physically enter someone else's private property.

 

Some pubs and clubs have 'No Trainers" rules and I have no objection to that but I would oppose any rule trying to ban trainers in society generally as an unjustifiable restriction of peoples liberty. These two positions are perfectly compatible with each other and not the least bit hypocritical.

 

Similarly I accept that if I go round to somebodies house I accept that my freedom of expression is limited to whatever the owners of that house will put up with and they have a perfect right to eject me from the premises if I offend them. However if those same house owners attempted to impose those restrictions upon me in my own house & the whole of society I would oppose that. These two positions are perfectly compatible with each other and not the least bit hypocritical.

 

This forum is no different, it is private property and those who own and run it can apply any rules they choose to their guests.

[Berberis]

Finally ... a solution:

 

Schrodinger's Prophet

 

A state now exists where a visual representation of the Prophet may or may not exist.

 

 

Errhem .....

 

I saw this and laughed

 

http://s2.b3ta.com/host/creative/58015/1274443201/schro.jpg

 

[sccsux]

So there are rules that can be broken, sowhere is your outrage at such restriction on liberty in light of other images being allowed to remain?

 

All rules can be broken. You have to be prepared for the consequences though. Maybe the poster whose mother you were depicting reported it?

 

You linked to an inappropriate image, the links were removed (probably by an admin or mod - contact the help desk for clarification).

 

I'll ask again:

 

Would you have been happy seeing a picture of your prophet being rogered by a goat?

[sccsux]

Errhem .....

 

 

 

 

It got missed in tha rantathon:D.

[tab1]

It is no more hypocritical to accept that privately run internet forums have rules than it is to accept rules of conduct (be they implicit or explicit) when you physically enter someone else's private property.

 

Some pubs and clubs have 'No Trainers" rules and I have no objection to that but I would oppose any rule trying to ban trainers in society generally as an unjustifiable restriction of peoples liberty. These two positions are perfectly compatible with each other and not the least bit hypocritical.

 

Similarly I accept that if I go round to somebodies house I accept that my freedom of expression is limited to whatever the owners of that house will put up with and they have a perfect right to eject me from the premises if I offend them. However if those same house owners attempted to impose those restrictions upon me in my own house & the whole of society I would oppose that. These two positions are perfectly compatible with each other and not the least bit hypocritical.

 

This forum is no different, it is private property and those who own and run it can apply any rules they choose to their guests.

 

The forum allowed one insuling image and not the other, so why don't the same rules apply to all?

[sccsux]

The forum allowed one insuling image and not the other, so why don't the same rules apply to all?

 

You applied attributes to it that directly related to a user on here.

 

Why not contact the help desk for clarification, rather than ranting on here about it.

[plekhanov]

The forum allowed one insuling image and not the other, so why don't the same rules apply to all?

How should I know? I'm not involved in running the forum maybe you should ask someone who is involved in doing so.

 

If you don't like the response you are of course free to go to a different forum with rules more to your liking or even to try and set up your own forum where you set the rules.

 

Incidentally where is your apology for falsely accusing B Trautmann of hypocrisy?

 

Where is your response to post 84 in which I eviscerated your attempted defence of your false accusations of hypocrisy against me?

[tab1]

How should I know? I'm not involved in running the forum maybe you should ask someone who is involved in doing so.

 

If you don't like the response you are of course free to go to a different forum with rules more to your liking or even to try and set up your own forum where you set the rules.

 

Incidentally where is your apology for falsely accusing B Trautmann of hypocrisy?

 

Where is your response to post 84 in which I eviscerated your attempted defence of your false accusations of hypocrisy against me?

So you respect the forum rules enough to abide by them, but I understood you to be a champion of free speech and freedom of expression. Now that you been asked for your opinion on an event concerning double standards, instead of defending freedom of expression you run with tail between your legs, telling me to go to a different forum if I didn't like the rules, nice one. That is hypocrisy in my book Plek whether you like it or not. I have no problem with forum rules but do have a problem with your double standards and will say so too.

[tab1]

You applied attributes to it that directly related to a user on here.

 

Why not contact the help desk for clarification, rather than ranting on here about it.

So even though it wasn't an image of anyone related to any user on here, it made it offensive you reckon because his name was ascribed to it? The fact is it wasn't his Mummy though was it so why the offense, was it because it was meant as an insult and the woman in the picture was said to represent his Mum. So you still think it's only the Muslims who need to lighten up? Mirror time matey!!

[tab1]

All rules can be broken. You have to be prepared for the consequences though. Maybe the poster whose mother you were depicting reported it?

 

You linked to an inappropriate image, the links were removed (probably by an admin or mod - contact the help desk for clarification).

 

I'll ask again:

 

Would you have been happy seeing a picture of your prophet being rogered by a goat?

Send me a picture of your mum also and see if I can do something with that, in the name of freedom of expression of course. Inappropriate my A*s, I thought nothing was supposed to stand between your freedoms to offend, and now it becomes inappropriate, do you know what the Muslims were complaining about? Bloody inappropriate depiction of a figure they revere, simple.

 

I agree with being responsible in what we post and what we say in order not to offend anyone else for no reason at all. It was you guys clambering on a high horse of freedom of expression without limits, but now we find there are limits after all because non Muslims are the target but still no limits of abuse when directed towards Muslims, that is hypocrisy.