Amazing, I think Van Gogh would've been stunned. I'm sure the art oficionados would be appalled, but Imagine other works being given similar treatment. Turners haywain would become gently swaying trees with a babbling brook. Or a Constable sea scape, with billowing sails and turbulant sea and sky.

The MoMA carved van Gogh’s The Starry Night into a pumpkin

THANKS!
In reply to this comment by geo321:
*quality

"But I always think that the best way to know God is to love many things."

~Vincent van Gogh

He's making a laughing stock of them all, and that's as bad as they are.

Uh oh, whose "they" here then? all muslims? or are we just talking about the bad guys. Right. I'll let that one pass. Bad guys only. Get it. aah.. but.. wait WHAT??.. Thunderf00t is as bad as those people for failing to specify the exact group he's making fun of? he is as bad as the people who slaughtered Van Gogh in the street, who threatened others with the same fate for expressing their opinion, the people who scream "death over denmark" because a newspaper that happened to be Danish published cartoons they didnt like?, Thunderf00t is as bad as those people??!

I agree with kronos on this one. As violent as he THINKS islam may be, christianity has done the same. Yet we have millions upon millions of people practising christianity without the violence, it's been edited out of the religion. Who is to say that's not the same way average muslims behave?

Again I'll try with a Catholic comparison, do we all agree that atleast 95% of Catholics are NOT child-molesters? sure we do. Can we at the same time admit that child-milestation is a major problem in the institution that is the catholic church, and that it is a HUGE problem even explaining why so few Catholics see a major problem with their leader (read:appointed half-god) has facilitated in these crimes?, and why so many Catholics rush in to support him?

I implore you to be realistic here: I and Thunderf00t know full well that most Muslims are not violent maniacs, I happen to live in a neighborhood with a large Muslim population, for instance, and can easily testify that most Muslims are easygoing people who just get on with their life. However, I think there are some serious problems with the way Islam makes people think (or rather not think). And as mentioned above, we know from experience that this isn't a matter of a few angry isolated mobs burning flags. Muslims all over the world are simply at odds with the basic democratic rights of other people( both Muslims and non-Muslims.), and trying to pretend otherwise is just silly.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Creators, South Park, Receive, Death, Threats, Muhammad' to 'Creators, South Park, Death, Threats, Muhammad, Stone, Parker, Hirsi Ali, van Gogh' - edited by my15minutes

The paintings it is based on, thanks to basilisk on Reddit:

• Last Supper by da Vinci
• The Birth of Venus by Boticelli
• The Anatomy Lesson by Rembrandt
• On the right, Girl with a Pearl Earring by Vermeer; on the left one of the Portraits of Henry VIII by Holbein
• The Raft of the Medusa by Géricault
• The Death of Marat by David
• The Creation of Adam by Michelangelo

Chorus:

• The Son of Man by Magritte
• Composition with Large Red Plane by Mondrian
• one of Frida Kahlo's self-portraits
• Portrait of Dora Maar Seated by Picasso
• The Scream by Munch
• The 1899 self-portrait by Van Gogh
• Ten Marilyns by Andy Warhol

Verse:

• Gabrielle d'Estrées et une de ses soeurs by unknown
• Maestá by Cimabue
• Salome by Caravaggio
• Olympia by Manet
• Liberty Leading the People by Delacroix
• Portrait of the Journalist Sylvia von Harden by Dix
• The Kiss by Klimt

Chorus again, then

• La Mariée by Chagall
• Las Meninas by Velázquez
• One of the Sunflowers by van Gogh, probably the Third Version

Throughout history, the only blood to be spilled has been done at the hands of the religious? Does that make sense?

In public, there should be caps on speech. In the US, the principle of shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater is on well known restriction on free speech. The line is also drawn on public hate speech that incites immediate violence. I think that we should also restrict speech that leads to violence, as many countries do. I don't care too much about what a person does or says in their home, if it doesn't harm me.

Run that buy me again? Hang on, one more time I didn't quiet believe my eyes! I, wait I can't say anything because of the new caps on freedom of expression. Oh wait, this website is now gone because of the new international laws that stop us from free speech. Guess what Longde, your speech on this website would be capped just as everyone else would be.

Welcome to the world were no one can speak without being beheaded because "someone might get offended." Hang on, while we're at it lets go ahead and hang:

• George Carlin Posthumously


• Howard Zinn Posthumously


• Noam Chomsky


• Theo van Gogh (film director)- Oh wait, they got him already.


• Frank Zappa


• Saad Eddin Ibrahim

Wait, here is a whole list you can start with; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Free_speech_activists.

Hell while we are being politically correct lets go ahead and enact a law that will make mandatory executions for all independent investigative journalists. I mean while we are going all out here, why don't we go ahead and make it a crime to be anything independent.

I think someone said this before me, "There can be no freedom without free speech."Free Press. You know what they say? If you don't like it don't read it! If you don't like it don't watch it! If you don't like it don't eat it! If you don't like it go back to your protective bubble!

Hypberbole aside where I come from it is an inalienable right to speak your mind even if it offends someone. It is that offended persons right to think you are a douche bag. But as soon as there is violence both parties are in the wrong. Justice is properly blind but in most cases she is not stupid; she doth not tread across that line to become a tyrant.

Quotes from one John Stuart Mill speaking on the Harm Principle.

If the arguments of the present chapter are of any validity, there ought to exist the fullest liberty of professing and discussing, as a matter of ethical conviction, any doctrine, however immoral it may be considered. (1978, 15)

John Stuart Mill quote on the Harm Principle, again:

In "On Liberty" (1859) John Stuart Mill argued that "...there ought to exist the fullest liberty of professing and discussing, as a matter of ethical conviction, any doctrine, however immoral it may be considered."[28] Mill argues that the fullest liberty of expression is required to push arguments to their logical limits, rather than the limits of social embarrassment. However, Mill also introduced what is known as the harm principle, in placing the following limitation on free expression: "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.[28]

What do these quotes mean to you and I? Well they mean simply; that a person can speak their mind so long as the argument presented is valid even if it is embarrassingly immoral. That means, as it is already a statute the US, that hate crime is not free speech. But the prosecuting party has the burden of proof. They have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a person had the intention of causing harm with said speech. Then we enter the realm of Libel and Slander. A person has to proven knowingly lieing about someone in order to be charged with Libel or Slander.

I have for you, sir or mam a quote from Saint Bernard of Clairvaux, this quote is often confused with Samuel Johnson's "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."

Hell is paved with good intentions." Even earlier than that, it's been attributed to Saint Bernard of Clairvaux (1091-1153)

>> ^longde:
Yada yada yada......you obviously don't feel any threat from the hate. Otherwise, you wouldn't be so quick to allow it to fester unrestricted.
I want to see someone who stands to be physically harmed by bigots and hatemongers take the same 'principled' stance.
It is obvious that mr condell likes the hate, and is hiding behind freedom of speech to spread his toxic message.


I'd say the people who killed someone like Theo van Gogh are the ones spreading hate. I'd say the people who bury their children alive in the name of honor are the ones spreading hate. I'd say the people who throw acid in the face of uncovered female faces are the ones spreading hate.

I'm tired of that bullshit.

Hans Teeuwen is a great absurdist and controversial stand up comedian.
He was a good friend of Theo van Gogh who was murdered for making the controversial film Submission about Islam. At the unveiling of a statue to remember van Gogh he sang a song in which he mentioned these women and that's how he got on the show. Here you can see the speech he made (subtitled)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvOS9vsccJs

This is pretty much exactly the same as this: http://www.videosift.com/video/Starry-Starry-Night-Vincent-Van-Gogh

Van Gogh's paintings set to this song. I guess we need two. Quality control.

Don McLean loves van Gogh, and so do I!

*promote

All fixed up my friend.

In reply to this comment by rasch187:
damn, it's *dead. I really wanted to see this.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

so sad. True geniuses are rarely appreciated in their own time. He's like a feline Van gogh.

>> ^Pprt:
Perhaps if the frequently silent and complacent minority (in the Netherlands and elsewhere) would show some backbone and castigate their extremists, Muslims wouldn't get a bad rap. Instead, they're seen as alien, very touchy, violent and immutable in their steadfastness.


The exact same thing can be said about Jews and Christians.