Author Topic: Yale Press Proves Maybe Libruls are Pansies (Read 1388 times)

Billy Rygar · « **on:** August 13, 2009, 02:58:03 PM »

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/13/books/13book.html?_r=1&hpw

FlameOfCallandor · « **Reply #1 on:** August 13, 2009, 03:04:20 PM »

Why is this even an issue? Clearly we cannot offend anyone. Aren't you aware that other cultures are very sensitive to this issue. We need to be accepting of other cultures. Shame on us.

The Fake Shemp · « **Reply #2 on:** August 13, 2009, 03:10:07 PM »

FoC is on your side, Cohen!

Mandark · « **Reply #3 on:** August 13, 2009, 03:15:01 PM »

http://fafblog.blogspot.com/2006/02/god-doesnt-read-funnies-what-if-its.html

The Fake Shemp · « **Reply #4 on:** August 13, 2009, 03:19:45 PM »

I do think it's pretty lame that something that documents the cartoons fails to include the cartoons themselves.

Van Cruncheon · « **Reply #5 on:** August 13, 2009, 03:25:10 PM »

libtards

brawndolicious · « **Reply #6 on:** August 13, 2009, 03:34:24 PM »

This all makes sense I guess. Islam prohibits printing pictures/making statues of prophets since it is an easy leap from that to idolatry. The writer should want as many muslims as possible to read this so he should follow major religious rules like that (that picture/statue rule is very well-obeyed today from what I know).

It doesn't compromise this book either since everybody already knew about the shock value of the original cartoons. If they didn't, you just write "mohammad with a turban-bomb" and they'll be up to speed. Maybe some people will be butthurt that you're losing some of the original's "political value" but I think it would be more productive to have muslims reading a western pov on this whole situation.

Now the middle-eastern printed children's book picture being thrown out is a bit weird. Middle eastern pictures of prophets always show their faces being covered so maybe they just decided to go with no pictures at all then if they couldn't get the original cartoons?

Tauntaun · « **Reply #7 on:** August 13, 2009, 03:39:51 PM »

Grr, let's burn down some mosques.

Flannel Boy · « **Reply #8 on:** August 13, 2009, 03:45:26 PM »

Quote from: am nintenho on August 13, 2009, 03:34:24 PM

This all makes sense I guess. Islam prohibits printing pictures/making statues of prophets since it is an easy leap from that to idolatry. The writer should want as many muslims as possible to read this so he should follow major religious rules like that (that picture/statue rule is very well-obeyed today from what I know).

It doesn't compromise this book either since everybody already knew about the shock value of the original cartoons. If they didn't, you just write "mohammad with a turban-bomb" and they'll be up to speed. Maybe some people will be butthurt that you're losing some of the original's "political value" but I think it would be more productive to have muslims reading a western pov on this whole situation.

How many Muslim fundamentalists are going to read a Western book entitled Cartoons that Shook the World. And which religious prohibitions should Yale follow? Just Islamic ones?

And no, it does compromise the book, a book called Cartoons that Shook the World! Not everyone has actually seen the cartoons. They're actually quite mild for the most, and readers would benefit from actually seeing them for themselves.

brawndolicious · « **Reply #9 on:** August 13, 2009, 03:56:32 PM »

Quote from: Malek on August 13, 2009, 03:45:26 PM

How many Muslim fundamentalists are going to read a Western book entitled Cartoons that Shook the World. And which religious prohibitions should Yale follow? Just Islamic ones?

And no, it does compromise the book, a book called Cartoons that Shook the World! Not everyone has actually seen the cartoons. They're actually quite mild for the most, and readers would benefit from actually seeing them for themselves.

I'm not talking about the fundamentalists, I just think that normal muslims would benefit from reading this.

The article says that they consulted muslim clerics so they were definitely aware of the specific reasoning that muslims have against seeing a prophet's face. If they had the original cartoons with the faces pixelated out..whatever. Muslims wouldn't have any (good) reason to object to those cartoons being in the book.

However, something like that would of course be so weird and confusing to non-muslims that it would probably do more damage than good.

Flannel Boy · « **Reply #10 on:** August 13, 2009, 04:02:55 PM »

Quote from: am nintenho on August 13, 2009, 03:56:32 PM

I'm not talking about the fundamentalists, I just think that normal muslims would benefit from reading this.

Non-fundamentalist should have less of a problem with seeing these actual cartoons. And maybe they would benefit more from seeing the actual cartoons.

Quote from: am nintenho on August 13, 2009, 03:56:32 PM

The article says that they consulted muslim clerics so they were definitely aware of the specific reasoning that muslims have against seeing a prophet's face.

By reasoning you mean religious superstition that non-Muslims should not feel compelled to follow.

etiolate · « **Reply #11 on:** August 13, 2009, 04:15:37 PM »

If 200 people hadn't been killed, I doubt Yale does this. It's as much fear of violence as it is religious sensitivity.

The Fake Shemp · « **Reply #12 on:** August 13, 2009, 04:21:09 PM »

Catering to specific people's cultural sensitivity on a folk legend is stupid.

The Fake Shemp · « **Reply #13 on:** August 13, 2009, 04:26:19 PM »

If they had any real balls, they'd make a pop-up book full of the original Danish cartoons.

Oh, by the way, I have spoiler tagged this picture of Muhammad (my own, personal depiction of what I think the prophet looks like), as not to offend any of our sensitive Muslim posters:

spoiler (click to show/hide)

[close]

brawndolicious · « **Reply #14 on:** August 13, 2009, 04:27:43 PM »

Honestly, I would expect most muslims to be more upset by the "normal" pictures of prophets than by the danish ones. The danish ones are designed to get people angry and they're also what the book is about. I think that printing the other pictures would suggest to muslims that there weren't any muslim clerics consulted before printing this book.

In the introduction, they could easily explain all this and let the reader decide for themselves if taking out the pictures was the best decision.

Kind of off-topic, but I think the writer of this article really, really should have done a tiny bit of research, like 10 minutes on google, to understand why muslims wouldn't want ANY pictures. It would make the situation make a little bit more sense. In the illogical, religious type of way.

The Fake Shemp · « **Reply #15 on:** August 13, 2009, 04:30:35 PM »

Quote from: am nintenho on August 13, 2009, 04:27:43 PM

Honestly, I would expect most muslims to be more upset by the "normal" pictures of prophets than by the danish ones. The danish ones are designed to get people angry and they're also what the book is about. I think that printing the other pictures would suggest to muslims that there weren't any muslim clerics consulted before printing this book.

In the introduction, they could easily explain all this and let the reader decide for themselves if taking out the pictures was the best decision.

Kind of off-topic, but I think the writer of this article really, really should have done a tiny bit of research, like 10 minutes on google, to understand why muslims wouldn't want ANY pictures. It would make the situation make a little bit more sense. In the illogical, religious type of way.

I don't even know how to respond to any of this.

etiolate · « **Reply #16 on:** August 13, 2009, 04:32:03 PM »

The thing is, its not real idolatry. These are not images to worship.

The Fake Shemp · « **Reply #17 on:** August 13, 2009, 04:33:41 PM »

As a Muslim, I am offended that the New York Times did not take the time to find out why Muslims were so angry about the Danish cartoons in an article discussing the publication of a book that documents the events.

Brehvolution · « **Reply #18 on:** August 13, 2009, 04:36:33 PM »

They didn't put the pictures in there because he doesn't exist.

brawndolicious · « **Reply #19 on:** August 13, 2009, 04:45:45 PM »

Quote from: Willco on August 13, 2009, 04:33:41 PM

As a Muslim, I am offended that the New York Times did not take the time to find out why Muslims were so angry about the Danish cartoons in an article discussing the publication of a book that documents the events.

The title of her article says "images", not cartoons, were banned in the book. She mentions that even the harmless pictures were banned.

twerd · « **Reply #20 on:** August 13, 2009, 07:24:25 PM »

yaletards.

Scurvy Stan · « **Reply #21 on:** August 13, 2009, 07:36:32 PM »

Book has been retitled "Some Unoffensive Cartoons That Kinda Shook the World a Little Bit, I'm Sorry Don't Hurt Me".

News:

Author Topic: Yale Press Proves Maybe Libruls are Pansies (Read 1388 times)