QUOTE(Tarc @ Thu 5th April 2012, 11:39am)
So you used to be enlightened, but then became corrupted by someone's ignorant argument.
I realize you're just trying to show your anti-Muslim credentials here, but why would anyone think that argument was "ignorant"? And obviously it's someone else's argument - it's a common-enough position to take on the issue, since it is, in fact, true. Or are you saying that if he doesn't have a brand-spanking-new reason to oppose inclusion of these images, he should just shut up? If so, then I'd have to say that's not very nice.
Speaking of which, the only reason anyone even bothers to bring up additional arguments in the first place is because Wikipedians have already rejected the sanest, most rational, and most logical argument there is, which is that including the images is inherently insulting to vast numbers of people, and insulting people is not nice. If you're a legitimate "encyclopedia," you take key cultural sensitivities into account
when and if you can. Since there's no requirement that Wikipedia include these images in order to properly cover the subjects of Islam and Mohammed's life, they most certainly can in this case.
Of course, they're
not a legitimate encyclopedia, so they don't take those sensitivities into account, and people end up having to make these otherwise-unnecessary (but hardly "ignorant") arguments. And that's just how they like it, because hey,
moar drama! More attention for us! Wheeeeee! It's the very definition of "internet trolling," and Wikipedia does it routinely.