06-09-2010, 08:57 AM
my turn 
;
a cartoonists role in the genre of of vilks is one of bringing to light certain apsects of the human condition.
if people like him didn't do their parodies and caricatures, a lot of things would pass us by without being noticed. in olden days it was pepes and his diaries, another well respected cartoonist was went under the name puc he also did similar stuff.
in the second world war, no cartoonist worth his salt had passed up the chance to show Hitler, Goebbels, or Mussolini in as bad a light as possible.
the pope has been characterized from here to eternity in much the same if not worse way and the christ god ad his followers are reviled for the main part in most of the middle east. much of this animosity being shown through anti west hatred and the burning of flags. (one of the greatest symbols a country can have)
even serious critique of muslim ways bring the same sort of retaliation as vilks himself received. salmon rushdi to name just one.
what i've noticed in this thread is this.
we all think vilks wasn't breaking laws.
some think he wasn't making a social statement but flagrantly trying to improve his stature by spreading hate.
we all think the retaliation he go was illegal.
what i find a little offensive is this.
a person draws a cartoon , knowing it will in all intent and purpose create or at the very least antagonize religious hatred.
the same person then expects round the clock police protection.
i find it hard to believe he didn't know what the outcome would be. he could have sent the cartoon in anon. and save all the hoohah, but he chose to be famous instead.
personally i'd say stop paying the police to protect idiots like this and put them to better use.
we're all accountable for our actions though in this instance it seems that some are less accountable than others.
was the brave. i don't think so. i think he was greedy for fame jmo
;a cartoonists role in the genre of of vilks is one of bringing to light certain apsects of the human condition.
if people like him didn't do their parodies and caricatures, a lot of things would pass us by without being noticed. in olden days it was pepes and his diaries, another well respected cartoonist was went under the name puc he also did similar stuff.
in the second world war, no cartoonist worth his salt had passed up the chance to show Hitler, Goebbels, or Mussolini in as bad a light as possible.
the pope has been characterized from here to eternity in much the same if not worse way and the christ god ad his followers are reviled for the main part in most of the middle east. much of this animosity being shown through anti west hatred and the burning of flags. (one of the greatest symbols a country can have)
even serious critique of muslim ways bring the same sort of retaliation as vilks himself received. salmon rushdi to name just one.
what i've noticed in this thread is this.
we all think vilks wasn't breaking laws.
some think he wasn't making a social statement but flagrantly trying to improve his stature by spreading hate.
we all think the retaliation he go was illegal.
what i find a little offensive is this.
a person draws a cartoon , knowing it will in all intent and purpose create or at the very least antagonize religious hatred.
the same person then expects round the clock police protection.
i find it hard to believe he didn't know what the outcome would be. he could have sent the cartoon in anon. and save all the hoohah, but he chose to be famous instead.
personally i'd say stop paying the police to protect idiots like this and put them to better use.
we're all accountable for our actions though in this instance it seems that some are less accountable than others.
was the brave. i don't think so. i think he was greedy for fame jmo