[extropy-chat] thought space map on cartoons

[Jack Parkinson]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: spike 
For the sake of argument, let us make a thought space
map.  Form four quadrants by asking oneself two questions:

A.  Were the Danish newspapers right to publish the cartoons?
B.  Were the protesters right to react as they have?

Position 1: no, no.  This is the peacemaker position, Bush,
Blair, some other world leaders are going this route.

*****This seems to me to be the position of expediency and moral cowardice - not peacemaking. Appeasement is never a very permanent solution. At best this position is a kowtow to fundamentalist views and an admission that threats of violence justify censorship.

Position 2: no, yes.  Presumably the protesters point of
view.

******This position denies free speech and attempts to impose censorship (self-censorship) with threats of heavy retribution for non-compliance. Only acceptable to those who favor dictatorships I think.

Position 3: yes, no.  Most journalists will go here, along
with many westerners who are not 1s.

******Most westerners will/should be here I think, however this position should be tempered by the knowledge that tolerance (free speech) needs to be balanced with respect (sensitivity to the feelings of others). Medieval jesters were permitted to mock the royal personage and burlesque the accepted rules of court - so long as they were witty, satirical, admirable, laughable, wry, and amusing. But they walked a tightrope - gratuitously offensive jesters could face the dungeons - or worse... 
In this respect it would perhaps be better to regard free speech as a privilege - something hard-won and not to be senselessly frittered away on trivial indulgence.


Position 4:  Yes, yes.  If both were right, the proponents
of this view must acknowledge that this will lead to conflict
which could tear apart societies and possibly lead to world
war 4.

******I can't imagine many would subscribe to this viewpoint. However those that do - would be agreeing in essence that might is right. This would be an admission that the threat of possible violence is a major determinant of our behavior. This position is not only an abdication of rationality, it also denies the rule of law. However, I can't deny the pervasive influence of this mindset...  This is fundamentalism at its most fundamental...

I recognize there are plenty of ways to complicate the
question, but let us start with this simplified thought
space map.  Can we make any generalizations?  Note that
I am not asking about legality: the Danish government does 
not control the press, so from a government point of view 
the cartoons were legal whereas the protests, at least the
violent ones, were not.  
I am asking from the moral and ethical point of view,
which quadrant would one put oneself, and why?  What
do you see as the long term consequences of your quadrant,
and what of the other three.  Handle this topic with
care please.
I will offer my own reasoning on this, but I want 
to see others' thoughts.
spike

******The whole sorry saga is an exercise in reactionary politics - and in cold-blooded manipulation of opinion. When you stop to consider the mind-boggling extent to which Moslems around the globe have been galvanized to ill-considered action by influential fundamentalists - a worthwhile question to ask may be - 'To what extent are WE also manipulated by fundamentalist opinion?' 
Jack Parkinson
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20060212/710e71eb/attachment.html>