Debate, and discuss, just dont Bore me.

In what has got to be some of the stupidest pap yet published by the Senile Old Lady, Stanley Fish has opined the following:

One of those arguments goes this way: It is hypocritical for Muslims to protest cartoons caricaturing Muhammad when cartoons vilifying the symbols of Christianity and Judaism are found everywhere in the media of many Arab countries. After all, what's the difference? The difference is that those who draw and publish such cartoons in Arab countries believe in their content; they believe that Jews and Christians follow false religions and are proper objects of hatred and obloquy.

So let me get this straight.  If we called for the extermination of all Arabs then it is ok to publish the cartoons of Mohammed.  But only if we think they are a bunch of idiots following a false religion.

So freedom of speech is now contingent upon hate and intolerance!  WOW!  And to think we dumb masses had to learn this enlightenment from the NY Times!


Comments
on Mar 03, 2006
While the paragraph you cite certainly contains some pretzel logic, it's not Fish's. The whole piece is actually a very interesting condemnation of liberal dogma. It was an Op-Ed piece, after all.
on Mar 04, 2006
While the paragraph you cite certainly contains some pretzel logic, it's not Fish's. The whole piece is actually a very interesting condemnation of liberal dogma.


interesting though it may be (actually it's more than merely interesting; i woulda described it as 'revealing')what fish intends as a condemnation of liberal dogma winds up being nothing more or less than an indication of just how far from reality an ideologue can roam in search of a windmill with which to join battle.

same goes for drguy.
on Mar 04, 2006
just how far from reality an ideologue can roam in search of a windmill with which to join battle.
---kingbee

Glass houses, king, glass houses.

on Mar 04, 2006
glass houses


heh. don't see me claimin no wings except my own.