PDA

View Full Version : Free speech vs stupidity



sandsjames
05-07-2015, 11:52 AM
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/05/03/at-least-2-shot-outside-muhammad-art-exhibit-in-texas/26849897/

I understand that we have free speech and should be able to make songs, paint pictures, create art, etc, about any topic.

However, there is also a point where free speech is limited when it is used to instigate violence.

The outcome of this "art" exhibit was very much expected. We received emails about it at work to be "cautious" if we were going to attend.

Why do people feel the need to provoke? Was there any other purpose to these Muhammad paintings then the one that occurred?

Let me be clear. I am not defending the shooters. But I'm also not supporting the exhibit.

Rollyn01
05-07-2015, 04:11 PM
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/05/03/at-least-2-shot-outside-muhammad-art-exhibit-in-texas/26849897/

I understand that we have free speech and should be able to make songs, paint pictures, create art, etc, about any topic.

However, there is also a point where free speech is limited when it is used to instigate violence.

The outcome of this "art" exhibit was very much expected. We received emails about it at work to be "cautious" if we were going to attend.

Why do people feel the need to provoke? Was there any other purpose to these Muhammad paintings then the one that occurred?

Let me be clear. I am not defending the shooters. But I'm also not supporting the exhibit.

If your only reaction to criticism (constructive or not) of your religion is to kill the critics, then I would say that on a whole, you're in a cult. Only a cult would take such extreme acts to subjugate its followers to never question it and its "leaders". There is no enlightenment to be found for anyone who views violence as the only appropriate action to achieve such a goal.

From that, blindly following anyone leads to no true answer and to laziness of the leader and the led. The leader is not willing to find one and/or too lazy to give one. The led ends up being too lazy to find their own answers and thus become subject to anyone's control by giving up free thinking and free will.

I say, if you're not questioning your religion as well as others, then you lack the critical thinking skills necessary to properly function in any society. How can you truly learn anything without asking questions?

P.S.: This is all spoken in generalities and not specifically to you.

sandsjames
05-07-2015, 04:36 PM
If your only reaction to criticism (constructive or not) of your religion is to kill the critics, then I would say that on a whole, you're in a cult. Only a cult would take such extreme acts to subjugate its followers to never question it and its "leaders". There is no enlightenment to be found for anyone who views violence as the only appropriate action to achieve such a goal.

From that, blindly following anyone leads to no true answer and to laziness of the leader and the led. The leader is not willing to find one and/or too lazy to give one. The led ends up being too lazy to find their own answers and thus become subject to anyone's control by giving up free thinking and free will.

I say, if you're not questioning your religion as well as others, then you lack the critical thinking skills necessary to properly function in any society. How can you truly learn anything without asking questions?

P.S.: This is all spoken in generalities and not specifically to you.

My point has nothing to do with religion. The shooters doing what they did is stupid and they deserved to get shot.

My point is that the "exhibit" served no other purpose than to provoke the outcome that occurred.

To me, it's no different than shouting "fire" in a movie theater.

Bos Mutus
05-07-2015, 04:47 PM
If your only reaction to criticism (constructive or not) of your religion is to kill the critics, then I would say that on a whole, you're in a cult. Only a cult would take such extreme acts to subjugate its followers to never question it and its "leaders". There is no enlightenment to be found for anyone who views violence as the only appropriate action to achieve such a goal.

From that, blindly following anyone leads to no true answer and to laziness of the leader and the led. The leader is not willing to find one and/or too lazy to give one. The led ends up being too lazy to find their own answers and thus become subject to anyone's control by giving up free thinking and free will.

I say, if you're not questioning your religion as well as others, then you lack the critical thinking skills necessary to properly function in any society. How can you truly learn anything without asking questions?

P.S.: This is all spoken in generalities and not specifically to you.

I think we would all agree that there is plenty to criticize Islam about.

Should we do it by mocking them in a highly offensive, anger-provoking manner such as this?

Yeah, maybe. Sometimes going over the top in offensiveness makes the point...

...this is not entirely unlike the "stomping on the flag" protest that seems to be in fashion lately...or Sinead O'Connor tearing up the Pope photo, maybe...do an act that really ruffles people up and you'll get attention, but sometimes it has to be done.

sandsjames
05-07-2015, 04:59 PM
I think we would all agree that there is plenty to criticize Islam about.

Should we do it by mocking them in a highly offensive, anger-provoking manner such as this?

Yeah, maybe. Sometimes going over the top in offensiveness makes the point...

...this is not entirely unlike the "stomping on the flag" protest that seems to be in fashion lately...or Sinead O'Connor tearing up the Pope photo, maybe...do an act that really ruffles people up and you'll get attention, but sometimes it has to be done.

Exactly. IMO, it would be like a white guy who lives in a black neighborhood raising a confederate flag over his house. Is it illegal? No. Is it part of his freedom of speech? Yes. Is it asking for a beat down? Yes.

Same reason women shouldn't dress like sluts, then expect not to get hit on. Don't act surprised when something bad happens.

Rollyn01
05-07-2015, 07:34 PM
My point has nothing to do with religion. The shooters doing what they did is stupid and they deserved to get shot.

My point is that the "exhibit" served no other purpose than to provoke the outcome that occurred.

To me, it's no different than shouting "fire" in a movie theater.

Your point may not be about the religion, but the reaction is based on the religion that is the subject of the exhibition. People reacted violently to something that they took offense to. Those people choose to react violently because they believe that their religion allows for it, or even advocates it.

FLAPS, USAF (ret)
05-07-2015, 07:51 PM
Although I think it's disrespectful to insult someone else's religion, I strongly support the right of any American to insult, or otherwise hurt the feelings of others. It's one of the freedoms we have in this country that many others in this world would be thrown in prison or killed for.

For those pointing their fingers at the organizer of the cartoon event, I wonder what their reaction would be if some Christians attacked an event that was intended to disparage Christianity. Do you think there would be ANY blame whatsoever placed on the event organizers/participants, or do you think the responsibility for the attack would be solely placed on the "radical" Christians?

garhkal
05-07-2015, 08:58 PM
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/05/03/at-least-2-shot-outside-muhammad-art-exhibit-in-texas/26849897/

I understand that we have free speech and should be able to make songs, paint pictures, create art, etc, about any topic.

However, there is also a point where free speech is limited when it is used to instigate violence.

That's the thing though. This was not done to instigate violence, since instigating violence is something you do to OTHERS. This caused people to react negatively to them. Which imo is not instigating.


My point has nothing to do with religion. The shooters doing what they did is stupid and they deserved to get shot.

My point is that the "exhibit" served no other purpose than to provoke the outcome that occurred.

To me, it's no different than shouting "fire" in a movie theater.

The thing with the whole "Fire in a theater" issue SJ is that shouting fire can cause a mass stampede causing injury to OTHERS. It is the 'cause of mass panic' that puts that sort of thing as being illegal. Where as this (and the charlie hebdo incident) was imo causing people to critically look at WHY Islam is so rabid against anyone who disrespects it.
And imo saying "We need to stop having stupidity like this happen, where someone knows that their speech against Islam will cause this sort of uproar to happen, so just SHUT UP" is exactly WHAT the Muslims want. US to be cowed into silence.


Exactly. IMO, it would be like a white guy who lives in a black neighborhood raising a confederate flag over his house. Is it illegal? No. Is it part of his freedom of speech? Yes. Is it asking for a beat down? Yes.

Same reason women shouldn't dress like sluts, then expect not to get hit on. Don't act surprised when something bad happens.

SJ, it sounds like Freedom of speech should only be allowed as long as it does not spur someone else on to beat your ass.. If so, exactly how is it freedom of speech?


Although I think it's disrespectful to insult someone else's religion, I strongly support the right of any American to insult, or otherwise hurt the feelings of others. It's one of the freedoms we have in this country that many others in this world would be thrown in prison or killed for.

Exactly Flaps. OUR Constitution gives us the right to say what we want, even if it IS disrespectful to someone else. Nothing in it though gives you the right to not be offended.

Bos Mutus
05-07-2015, 09:04 PM
Exactly Flaps. OUR Constitution gives us the right to say what we want, even if it IS disrespectful to someone else. Nothing in it though gives you the right to not be offended.

Right, just like trampling the US Flag in protest.

sandsjames
05-07-2015, 09:07 PM
That's the thing though. This was not done to instigate violence, since instigating violence is something you do to OTHERS. This caused people to react negatively to them. Which imo is not instigating.



The thing with the whole "Fire in a theater" issue SJ is that shouting fire can cause a mass stampede causing injury to OTHERS. It is the 'cause of mass panic' that puts that sort of thing as being illegal. Where as this (and the charlie hebdo incident) was imo causing people to critically look at WHY Islam is so rabid against anyone who disrespects it.
And imo saying "We need to stop having stupidity like this happen, where someone knows that their speech against Islam will cause this sort of uproar to happen, so just SHUT UP" is exactly WHAT the Muslims want. US to be cowed into silence.



SJ, it sounds like Freedom of speech should only be allowed as long as it does not spur someone else on to beat your ass.. If so, exactly how is it freedom of speech?



Exactly Flaps. OUR Constitution gives us the right to say what we want, even if it IS disrespectful to someone else. Nothing in it though gives you the right to not be offended.

Of course we should have freedom of speech. We should also have the intelligence to know when it's done solely for the purpose of instigating and we shouldn't be surprised when somebody fires a shot.

Common sense MUST come into play in a civilized society. But a black guy should be smart enough not to walk into a KKK meeting. A "Baptist church" should be smart enough not to protest at funerals. A group of "artists" should be smart enough not to have an exhibit that is intended to provoke violence.

There's what's legal, then there's what's right.

So, yes, we have freedom of speech, and we should be able to say want we want without fear of reprisal from the government or law enforcement. That doesn't mean that the people targeted aren't going to respond.

Just as a company can legally fire someone for saying the wrong thing, certain things can be expected when stupidity of this sort takes place.

And you can give all your comparisons of "Oh, dear, what if it would have been Jesus instead of Muhammed?" It doesn't matter. The outcome was predicted and expected. I don't agree with the people at the exhibit getting shot at, but I also don't feel sorry for them because they knew what was going to happen just by being there.

sandsjames
05-07-2015, 09:09 PM
Exactly Flaps. OUR Constitution gives us the right to say what we want, even if it IS disrespectful to someone else. Nothing in it though gives you the right to not be offended.It gives us the "right" to not fear reprisal from law enforcement or the government.

sandsjames
05-07-2015, 09:10 PM
Right, just like trampling the US Flag in protest.

Come on, now, BM (love that abbreviation). You know that the flag doesn't count. It's the exception to the rule.

sandsjames
05-07-2015, 09:19 PM
Your point may not be about the religion, but the reaction is based on the religion that is the subject of the exhibition. People reacted violently to something that they took offense to. Those people choose to react violently because they believe that their religion allows for it, or even advocates it.

This was like placing a flier on the mailbox outside a pedophile's house about a unaccompanied children's birthday party. The pedophile is still a pedophile, I've got no respect for him. That doesn't mean it was smart to advertise to the pedophile that he was going to have free access to kids.

Bos Mutus
05-07-2015, 09:25 PM
This was like placing a flier on the mailbox outside a pedophile's house about a unaccompanied children's birthday party. The pedophile is still a pedophile, I've got no respect for him. That doesn't mean it was smart to advertise to the pedophile that he was going to have free access to kids.

Good one.

The analogy I always use for this: It is stupid to walk through downtown Camden, NJ at 11 pm whilst counting out $100 bills. You will get jumped. But, the person that jumps you is still a criminal for doing so.

That said...I'm not sure this art contest was the same kind of stupid...yes, it was obviously designed to piss off Muslims and instigate a reaction...but, I think it was a fight just itchin' to be provoked.

sandsjames
05-07-2015, 09:36 PM
Here's some of the message we received:

"Although past events involving the alleged defamation of Islam and the prophet,
Muhammad, have resulted in threats or overt acts of violence overseas, we have not yet seen
such violence in the United States."

Well, we can't be happy if they haven't had violent responses in the U.S. Let's see what we can do about that.

And this event was headed by a guy from Norway. Garhkal, I know you don't defend his freedom of speech, according to the Constitution, because he's not even a citizen. So a foreigner not protected under our Constitution holds an even meant to provoke and it's no big deal.

Rollyn01
05-07-2015, 10:18 PM
This was like placing a flier on the mailbox outside a pedophile's house about a unaccompanied children's birthday party. The pedophile is still a pedophile, I've got no respect for him. That doesn't mean it was smart to advertise to the pedophile that he was going to have free access to kids.

Blame the victim? Seriously? I'm so done right now. I can't even figure out how people live with themselves blaming the victim. Thing is, it is against the law to kill anyone regardless of reason (aside from self-defense and even that is called into question sometimes). Claiming religious right to kill someone in defense of your religion is bullshit regardless of the religion, it's still against the law. Besides, once you give credibility to blaming the victim instead of the criminal, you give the criminal more power to control others through fear. Last I check, we were fighting against that in support of the Constitution.

TJMAC77SP
05-08-2015, 12:55 AM
Come on, now, BM (love that abbreviation). You know that the flag doesn't count. It's the exception to the rule.

But I don't remember any of us characterizing the flag stomping as free speech as going too far and designed only to instigate violence or provoke. It seems while we don’t like the flag stomping we were willing to let it happen without too many questions as to the motivations of the protest organizers.

BTW: For the record, I characterize Pam Geller in the same way as the preacher who burned the Koran. I just found it curious the tone of this thread vs. the flag stomping thread.

sandsjames
05-08-2015, 01:15 AM
Blame the victim? Seriously? I'm so done right now. I can't even figure out how people live with themselves blaming the victim. Thing is, it is against the law to kill anyone regardless of reason (aside from self-defense and even that is called into question sometimes). Claiming religious right to kill someone in defense of your religion is bullshit regardless of the religion, it's still against the law. Besides, once you give credibility to blaming the victim instead of the criminal, you give the criminal more power to control others through fear. Last I check, we were fighting against that in support of the Constitution.

I'm blaming both.

Mjölnir
05-08-2015, 02:36 AM
As has been discussed before, the freedom of speech is intended to protect that speech that is 'provocative', 'distasteful' or even 'offends.' There is a difference between yelling "fire" in a crowded auditorium and a cartoon drawing exhibit that was pretty clearly designed to piss off Muslims.

Now, under our system of laws, just because I piss you off doesn't give you the right to kill me. Purposefully pissing off people who don't really care about our laws and who think it honorable to kill you for offending their religion may not be the 'safest' thing to do, but it is also challenging exactly what radicals are trying to accomplish -- silence us.


As we must account for every idle word, so must we account for every idle silence.

-- Benjamin Franklin

sandsjames
05-08-2015, 03:01 AM
As has been discussed before, the freedom of speech is intended to protect that speech that is 'provocative', 'distasteful' or even 'offends.' There is a difference between yelling "fire" in a crowded auditorium and a cartoon drawing exhibit that was pretty clearly designed to piss off Muslims.

Now, under our system of laws, just because I piss you off doesn't give you the right to kill me. Purposefully pissing off people who don't really care about our laws and who think it honorable to kill you for offending their religion may not be the 'safest' thing to do, but it is also challenging exactly what radicals are trying to accomplish -- silence us.

What the fuck is so difficult about this? I'm not excusing what the shooters did. I'm not saying it's right. I'm saying it the god damned outcome that was expected...and anyone who puts themselves in that situation deserves what they get.

If I walk up to the bad ass in the school yard and tell him I banged his mom, I can expect to get my ass kicked. Are you guys having a problem comprehending this? I'm not saying it's right. I'm saying it's what's going to happen.

Now, if you believe that, because we are protected by the Constitution, you can say whatever you want, without consequence, then you're part of the problem. Quit talking about the ideal and start talking about reality.

TJMAC77SP
05-08-2015, 03:14 AM
What the fuck is so difficult about this? I'm not excusing what the shooters did. I'm not saying it's right. I'm saying it the god damned outcome that was expected...and anyone who puts themselves in that situation deserves what they get.

If I walk up to the bad ass in the school yard and tell him I banged his mom, I can expect to get my ass kicked. Are you guys having a problem comprehending this? I'm not saying it's right. I'm saying it's what's going to happen.

Now, if you believe that, because we are protected by the Constitution, you can say whatever you want, without consequence, then you're part of the problem. Quit talking about the ideal and start talking about reality.

But none of us were saying that last week about the protesters in Georgia who set a flag upon the ground and invited people to step on it. Where was the reality then? All we discussed was the freedom of speech and some thought it should be illegal to desecrate the flag.

Mjölnir
05-08-2015, 03:23 AM
What the fuck is so difficult about this? I'm not excusing what the shooters did. I'm not saying it's right. I'm saying it the god damned outcome that was expected...and anyone who puts themselves in that situation deserves what they get.

#1. You brought up a topic, some people see it differently ...

#2. Ideal vs. reality ... I get it. But I also believe in the ideals that our nation was founded on.


If I walk up to the bad ass in the school yard and tell him I banged his mom, I can expect to get my ass kicked. Are you guys having a problem comprehending this? I'm not saying it's right. I'm saying it's what's going to happen.

So, what if the bad ass in the school yard needs to be taken down a notch or two? If you walk up and confront him, yeah ... you may get popped in the face, but if you and all your friends walk up and confront him, you may still get popped in the face but your friends may also take him down after the fact. I just have to ask myself if I am willing to be the one that takes the face shot.

In the case of ISIS/ISIL ... while I don't agree with their views, in their country (if they had one), if they establish the laws ... fine. In our country, we do not have a Sharia based-state and their efforts to intimidate people into silence is dangerous ... it is a much bigger issue than a cartoon. Again, I don't think the folks in TX were exercising that kind of vision, but ... at some point, some people are willing to put their personal safety or comfort behind what they believe.

If we refrain from showing a cartoon of Mohamed, what if they next claim they are harmed by the showing of the cross (or any other religious image). When people remove their crosses, what if they next claim they are harmed by others praying to any other god but Allah...


Now, if you believe that, because we are protected by the Constitution, you can say whatever you want, without consequence, then you're part of the problem. Quit talking about the ideal and start talking about reality.

Now, Pam Gellar is no Free Speech crusader, she is an anti-Muslim bigot. Problem for the radical left is that it's a bigger crime to speak out against the fanatics than it is to question their beliefs. Problem for the radical right is they'll use this to further hatred instead of questioning violent beliefs.

Martin Luther King faced the issue of the idea of what our country should be and the reality of what it was. Now, I don't think the folks in TX are on par with that kind of vision, but where is the line on what freedoms you are willing to sacrifice out of fear?

-No church on Sundays?
-No public displays of religion that may offend a radical?
-The freedom for your wife to dress how she pleases?
-The freedom for your wife to go where she wishes without a male escorting her?
-The recognition of your private property?
-Electing your leadership vice having it appointed?

In real basic terms, when talking about radical Islamic beliefs, and being afraid to stand up to them, are you willing to surrender:

-Freedom from religious police
-Equality issues between men and women
-Separation of religion and state
-Freedom of speech
Freedom of religion.

It isn't about "saying what you want without consequence" (which would be the ideal), it is accepting some risk to exercise the freedoms in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Like a muscle, if we refuse to exercise those freedoms (out of fear or sloth), they will atrophy into nothingness.

Edit: Something I read somewhere else on this: "The First Amendment protects the right of people to be assholes, not people to be killers."

Mjölnir
05-08-2015, 04:45 AM
One question I have seen a little on about this is a comparison of the reactions from the incident in Texas and the Charlie Hebdo attack.

garhkal
05-08-2015, 05:50 AM
Here's some of the message we received:

"Although past events involving the alleged defamation of Islam and the prophet,
Muhammad, have resulted in threats or overt acts of violence overseas, we have not yet seen
such violence in the United States."

Well, we can't be happy if they haven't had violent responses in the U.S. Let's see what we can do about that.

And this event was headed by a guy from Norway. Garhkal, I know you don't defend his freedom of speech, according to the Constitution, because he's not even a citizen. So a foreigner not protected under our Constitution holds an even meant to provoke and it's no big deal.

Is he naturalized in the US? Or just a foreigner over here on a visitors visa?


What the fuck is so difficult about this? I'm not excusing what the shooters did. I'm not saying it's right. I'm saying it the god damned outcome that was expected...and anyone who puts themselves in that situation deserves what they get.

IMO the part we are having issues with is that you seem to be saying "Cause its an expected result" be silent. Don't stir the pot. Which is exactly playing into their hands. Silencing all opposition.


It isn't about "saying what you want without consequence" (which would be the ideal), it is accepting some risk to exercise the freedoms in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Like a muscle, if we refuse to exercise those freedoms (out of fear or sloth), they will atrophy into nothingness.

Thanks for saying it better than me Mjolnir.

sandsjames
05-08-2015, 11:16 AM
But none of us were saying that last week about the protesters in Georgia who set a flag upon the ground and invited people to step on it. Where was the reality then? All we discussed was the freedom of speech and some thought it should be illegal to desecrate the flag.

I didn't think it should be illegal to do. I also don't think it should be illegal to have an art exhibit. Never once did I say it should be illegal.

sandsjames
05-08-2015, 11:33 AM
#1. You brought up a topic, some people see it differently ...

#2. Ideal vs. reality ... I get it. But I also believe in the ideals that our nation was founded on.
This is what is annoying the shit out of me. I ALSO believe in the ideals. However, I recognize that there is also reality.



So, what if the bad ass in the school yard needs to be taken down a notch or two? If you walk up and confront him, yeah ... you may get popped in the face, but if you and all your friends walk up and confront him, you may still get popped in the face but your friends may also take him down after the fact. I just have to ask myself if I am willing to be the one that takes the face shot. Right, you are accepting that risk. The people at the exhibit accepted the risk. That means that they have to take responsibility for putting themselves in that situation.


In the case of ISIS/ISIL ... while I don't agree with their views, in their country (if they had one), if they establish the laws ... fine. In our country, we do not have a Sharia based-state and their efforts to intimidate people into silence is dangerous ... it is a much bigger issue than a cartoon. Again, I don't think the folks in TX were exercising that kind of vision, but ... at some point, some people are willing to put their personal safety or comfort behind what they believe. Yes..."willing to put their personal safety..." Again, key words. They also have to share the responsibility of what happened. That is my point.


If we refrain from showing a cartoon of Mohamed, what if they next claim they are harmed by the showing of the cross (or any other religious image). When people remove their crosses, what if they next claim they are harmed by others praying to any other god but Allah... Ok, so someday when we "win" the war against radical Islam, everyone can feel safe to go out and put on their anti-muslim exhibits? Right? Is that what we're looking at doing? Of course not. This has nothing to do with our "rights". This has nothing to do with protecting our "rights". This isn't speaking out against, or for, anything.



Martin Luther King faced the issue of the idea of what our country should be and the reality of what it was. Now, I don't think the folks in TX are on par with that kind of vision, but where is the line on what freedoms you are willing to sacrifice out of fear?

-No church on Sundays?
-No public displays of religion that may offend a radical?
-The freedom for your wife to dress how she pleases?
-The freedom for your wife to go where she wishes without a male escorting her?
-The recognition of your private property?
-Electing your leadership vice having it appointed?

In real basic terms, when talking about radical Islamic beliefs, and being afraid to stand up to them, are you willing to surrender:

-Freedom from religious police
-Equality issues between men and women
-Separation of religion and state
-Freedom of speech
Freedom of religion. Holy shit, dude. You talk about one of your all time snowball theories. The people IN the muslim countries are the ones who need to stand up to it. There is nobody here taking our rights away. There is nobody here oppressing artists. There is nobody here creating a situation where our rights are in danger. Do you really believe that our "rights" our in danger from the muslim extremists? Do you really believe that????


It isn't about "saying what you want without consequence" (which would be the ideal), it is accepting some risk to exercise the freedoms in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Like a muscle, if we refuse to exercise those freedoms (out of fear or sloth), they will atrophy into nothingness. Who, in this country, is afraid to do these things you mention? Who?


Edit: Something I read somewhere else on this: "The First Amendment protects the right of people to be assholes, not people to be killers."And I'm not lobbying for the killers to be dismissed from blame.

sandsjames
05-08-2015, 11:34 AM
One question I have seen a little on about this is a comparison of the reactions from the incident in Texas and the Charlie Hebdo attack.


Because I, honestly, don't care what is happening in France. Nor do most people.

sandsjames
05-08-2015, 11:37 AM
Is he naturalized in the US? Or just a foreigner over here on a visitors visa? Don't know. I do know that the "key note" speaker was a Dutch politician, so I'll assume he wasn't naturalized. So was his speech protected?




IMO the part we are having issues with is that you seem to be saying "Cause its an expected result" be silent. Don't stir the pot. Which is exactly playing into their hands. Silencing all opposition.Ok...fair enough. So I expect that the next time there are riots against the police you will walk through the neighborhood with a sign saying "support your local police force" and "violence isn't the answer"? You need to exercise your rights. And, of course, you can feel perfectly safe doing so because you're just exercising your rights. Would you not expect some consequences?

TJMAC77SP
05-08-2015, 05:30 PM
I didn't think it should be illegal to do. I also don't think it should be illegal to have an art exhibit. Never once did I say it should be illegal.

SJ, I didn't say you did.

I quoted this post

"What the fuck is so difficult about this? I'm not excusing what the shooters did. I'm not saying it's right. I'm saying it the god damned outcome that was expected...and anyone who puts themselves in that situation deserves what they get.

If I walk up to the bad ass in the school yard and tell him I banged his mom, I can expect to get my ass kicked. Are you guys having a problem comprehending this? I'm not saying it's right. I'm saying it's what's going to happen.

Now, if you believe that, because we are protected by the Constitution, you can say whatever you want, without consequence, then you're part of the problem. Quit talking about the ideal and start talking about reality."

Not one of us questioned the protesters (in Georgia) motivation at length or intimated that the drama was a predictable response to their actions. We talked about how the former AF member who got arrested shouldn't have done that (and her nude posing past). We repeatedly cited that desecrating the flag is protected speech. We never one suggested that the protesters had whatever happened or might have happened would deserve what they get. Read the two threads again. The difference in tone is obvious.

FLAPS, USAF (ret)
05-08-2015, 07:01 PM
Something I wish most Americans would understand. If you offend a "radical" Muslim, they want you dead. If you don't offend a "radical" Muslim, they still want you dead.

sandsjames
05-08-2015, 07:14 PM
SJ, I didn't say you did.

I quoted this post

"What the fuck is so difficult about this? I'm not excusing what the shooters did. I'm not saying it's right. I'm saying it the god damned outcome that was expected...and anyone who puts themselves in that situation deserves what they get.

If I walk up to the bad ass in the school yard and tell him I banged his mom, I can expect to get my ass kicked. Are you guys having a problem comprehending this? I'm not saying it's right. I'm saying it's what's going to happen.

Now, if you believe that, because we are protected by the Constitution, you can say whatever you want, without consequence, then you're part of the problem. Quit talking about the ideal and start talking about reality."

Not one of us questioned the protesters (in Georgia) motivation at length or intimated that the drama was a predictable response to their actions. We talked about how the former AF member who got arrested shouldn't have done that (and her nude posing past). We repeatedly cited that desecrating the flag is protected speech. We never one suggested that the protesters had whatever happened or might have happened would deserve what they get. Read the two threads again. The difference in tone is obvious.

And you're really comparing the two threads? Nobody ended up injured during the flag protest. Nobody expects to get injured during a flag protest. There is no widespread history of people being targeted for protesting/desecrating the flag. There have been no threats against those people protesting the flag.

These are two completely different outcomes. If a person chooses to jump in the middle of an ongoing war then they are accepting the consequences.

sandsjames
05-08-2015, 07:15 PM
Something I wish most Americans would understand. If you offend a "radical" Muslim, they want you dead. If you don't offend a "radical" Muslim, they still want you dead.

Is anybody here defending the radical Muslims? Has anyone, at any point, defended their actions? Please lead me to those posts. I'm curious to read them.

FLAPS, USAF (ret)
05-08-2015, 07:22 PM
Is anybody here defending the radical Muslims? Has anyone, at any point, defended their actions? Please lead me to those posts. I'm curious to read them.

My statement was referring to "most Americans," not "most MTF posters on this thread." It was just a statement...

garhkal
05-08-2015, 07:47 PM
I didn't think it should be illegal to do. I also don't think it should be illegal to have an art exhibit. Never once did I say it should be illegal.

Maybe not illegal. BUT it does seem like you are saying it shouldn't be done and it is wrong to do. Which is almost the same thing.


This has nothing to do with our "rights". This has nothing to do with protecting our "rights". This isn't speaking out against, or for, anything.

IMO it does have plenty to do with our rights. IT is people saying that we won't be terrorized into being silent.


Ok...fair enough. So I expect that the next time there are riots against the police you will walk through the neighborhood with a sign saying "support your local police force" and "violence isn't the answer"? You need to exercise your rights. And, of course, you can feel perfectly safe doing so because you're just exercising your rights. Would you not expect some consequences?

I would fully expect some to dislike me saying "Support the police" Does not mean i fear those consequences enough to stay silent. NOR does it mean that those who DO "push consequences' on me should be off the hook for arrests and charges of violence/attempted murder etc, just cause i 'insulted them.


Something I wish most Americans would understand. If you offend a "radical" Muslim, they want you dead. If you don't offend a "radical" Muslim, they still want you dead.

Though it comes from the GOPUSA site, i loved a recent cartoon they had, where they likened radical muslims to the Hulk.
You can see the cartoon here
http://www.gopusa.com/cartoons/2015/05/06/terror-2/

sandsjames
05-08-2015, 07:57 PM
Maybe not illegal. BUT it does seem like you are saying it shouldn't be done and it is wrong to do. Which is almost the same thing.What I'm saying is that, if these "artists" want to be "soldiers" then they better expect some deaths in battle.




IMO it does have plenty to do with our rights. IT is people saying that we won't be terrorized into being silent. No, it's not. It's people saying "We weren't making these pictures before, but this time we will just to antagonize.

This isn't like the Boston Tea Party. This isn't a revolt against something that was already occurring. This was the creating of a situation in order to cause a specific, and expected, outcome.




I would fully expect some to dislike me saying "Support the police" Does not mean i fear those consequences enough to stay silent. NOR does it mean that those who DO "push consequences' on me should be off the hook for arrests and charges of violence/attempted murder etc, just cause i 'insulted them. Who said anything about being "off the hook for arrests"? Why are you stuck on that one thing? Nobody is saying that. All I'm saying is you know that, by putting yourself in that situation, what the likely outcome is.

I am curious as to your response about the Dutch politician who was the keynote speaker at this "event", though. Was it ok for him to be targeted, as he isn't protected by our Constitution?

Now go ahead and dislike this post, too. I'm curious to see how high one single person can make my "dislike" count climb to.

sandsjames
05-08-2015, 07:59 PM
My statement was referring to "most Americans," not "most MTF posters on this thread." It was just a statement...I'm curious as to who "most" of these Americans you speak of are.

MikeKerriii
05-08-2015, 08:06 PM
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/05/03/at-least-2-shot-outside-muhammad-art-exhibit-in-texas/26849897/

I understand that we have free speech and should be able to make songs, paint pictures, create art, etc, about any topic.

However, there is also a point where free speech is limited when it is used to instigate violence.

The outcome of this "art" exhibit was very much expected. We received emails about it at work to be "cautious" if we were going to attend.

Why do people feel the need to provoke? Was there any other purpose to these Muhammad paintings then the one that occurred?

Let me be clear. I am not defending the shooters. But I'm also not supporting the exhibit.
I don't support this exhibit, but I support the right to have this kind of exhibit, those are two very different things

Inciting violence is not a right but this exhibit did not ask people to commit violence so legally it is not incitement. No sane Person would have a violent response to this event, even CAIR says the the exhibitors had a right to do what they did

FLAPS, USAF (ret)
05-08-2015, 08:06 PM
I'm curious as to who "most" of these Americans you speak of are.

Sure, you want me to name them? Most of them?

sandsjames
05-08-2015, 08:09 PM
Sure, you want me to name them? Most of them?Yes, please.

sandsjames
05-08-2015, 08:10 PM
I don't support this exhibit, but I support the right to have this kind of exhibit, those are two very different things

Inciting violence is not a right but this exhibit did not ask people to commit violence so legally it is not incitement. No sane Person would have a violent response to this event, even CAIR says the the exhibitors had a right to do what they did

I also support that "right".

MikeKerriii
05-08-2015, 08:14 PM
Is he naturalized in the US? Or just a foreigner over here on a visitors visa? In either case he is still protected by the Constitution/




IMO the part we are having issues with is that you seem to be saying "Cause its an expected result" be silent. Don't stir the pot. Which is exactly playing into their hands. Silencing all opposition. Agreed, our nation was founded by "Pot Stirrers" willing to face up to bullies. Not "Summer Soldiers"

MikeKerriii
05-08-2015, 08:20 PM
I also support that "right".

You obviously do not. Supporting the hecklers veto of the violent is not supporting that right is is surrendering that right for safety. Id you go up to a bully and insult him and you get smacked you are doing the right thing, and the violence is still sole the responsibility of the bully.

sandsjames
05-08-2015, 08:32 PM
You obviously do not. Supporting the hecklers veto of the violent is not supporting that right is is surrendering that right for safety. Id you go up to a bully and insult him and you get smacked you are doing the right thing, and the violence is still sole the responsibility of the bully.

The "sole" responsibility is BS. Even though one is legal and one is illegal, both sides still share part of the responsibility.

If I go to a bar and mouth of to the drunk guy and he punches me, he has committed the illegal act. To that there is no doubt. However, I share in the responsibility for opening my big mouth. I could have avoided the situation instead of instigating it.

If I'm a chick and am the only female around a 30 drunk college guys and get sexually assaulted, they are the ones who broke the law. To that there is no doubt. However, I could have avoided the situation altogether. I put myself in the middle of something that never had to happen.

If I'm a black guy and walk into a KKK meeting and get lynched, the KKK members are the ones breaking the law. They are the one's who should be punished. However, I could have easily avoided the situation.

I hate to bring up this point because I hate teaching it in my classes but, at least in the AF, we talk a lot about risk management. It comes down to whether or not each situation has a reward that outweighs the risk. If we decide that the "reward" is worth the risk then we continue, all the while knowing that we are ACCEPTING THE RISK in order to accomplish our task. Everyone at that "art exhibit" accepted a risk when they attended.

sandsjames
05-08-2015, 08:40 PM
To even make this about the 1st amendment is ridiculous. There was never anybody in the legal system trying to prevent this "event".

Just as a reminder:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

The freedom of speech of those at the "exhibit" was never close to being infringed upon.

Mjölnir
05-08-2015, 08:41 PM
If I'm a chick and am the only female around a 30 drunk college guys and get sexually assaulted, they are the ones who broke the law. To that there is no doubt. However, I could have avoided the situation altogether. I put myself in the middle of something that never had to happen.

Is she even more to blame based on what she was wearing?:rolleyes:

Mjölnir
05-08-2015, 08:44 PM
To even make this about the 1st amendment is ridiculous. There was never anybody in the legal system trying to prevent this "event".

Just as a reminder:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

The freedom of speech of those at the "exhibit" was never close to being infringed upon.

Not by the government. But is violence or the threat of violence being used to intimidate or attempt to intimidate people who would exercise their free speech (however dumb their point may be). That is the bigger point that you are either missing or ignoring.

sandsjames
05-08-2015, 08:45 PM
Is she even more to blame based on what she was wearing?:rolleyes:She is NOT to blame for what happened. She is stupid for putting herself in that situation. Or do you disagree? Is it not stupid to do that? And I'm pretty sure the title of this thread was "free speech vs stupidity".

Answer that simple question before posting your passive aggressive little gay emoticons. Is it STUPID for that woman to put herself in that situation?

Mjölnir
05-08-2015, 08:48 PM
Because I, honestly, don't care what is happening in France. Nor do most people.

Submerge an image of Jesus Christ in a jar of urine and call it "art". Radical Christians protest and vandalize an image of the work. Christians called intolerant.

Draw an image of Mohammed. Radical Muslims shoot up a magazine office and an exhibition. Artists called intolerant.

Hold a draw an image of Mohammed contest. Radical Muslims show up to shoot people, brought down by security. Organizers called irresponsible.

sandsjames
05-08-2015, 08:49 PM
Not by the government. But is violence or the threat of violence being used to intimidate or attempt to intimidate people who would exercise their free speech (however dumb their point may be). That is the bigger point that you are either missing or ignoring.

Right, I'm the one ignoring the point. I'm the one that can't grasp that, even though we are protected against certain stuff we have to expect certain stuff.

I should be able to leave my doors unlocked and open when I go on vacation because it's illegal for someone to take stuff from my house. However, common sense tells me that, if I make that choice, I'm being a fucking idiot.

sandsjames
05-08-2015, 08:51 PM
Submerge an image of Jesus Christ in a jar of urine and call it "art". Radical Christians protest and vandalize an image of the work. Christians called intolerant.

Draw an image of Mohammed. Radical Muslims shoot up a magazine office and an exhibition. Artists called intolerant.

Hold a draw an image of Mohammed contest. Radical Muslims show up to shoot people, brought down by security. Organizers called irresponsible.

Am I supposed to disagree with something here? I can make irrelevant comparisons, too.

Make sex jokes around a chick that doesn't mind sex jokes and you won't get busted for making sex jokes.

Make sex jokes around a chick that does mind and you'll end up getting kicked out of the military.

TJMAC77SP
05-08-2015, 08:53 PM
And you're really comparing the two threads? Nobody ended up injured during the flag protest. Nobody expects to get injured during a flag protest. There is no widespread history of people being targeted for protesting/desecrating the flag. There have been no threats against those people protesting the flag.

These are two completely different outcomes. If a person chooses to jump in the middle of an ongoing war then they are accepting the consequences.

To answer your question (in the event it wasn't rhetorical)........yes I am comparing the two threads.

I am not getting your logic here. I fully understand your point about the wisdom of the art contest (or lack of) but that is irrelevant to the protest it represents or the exercise of free speech it engages.

So, Michelle Manhart should not have been arrested because her reaction was a visceral and quite predictable response to seeing her country's flag desecrated? I realize it only a piece of cloth to you just as there are many Muslims who wouldn't commit murder for a perceived threat to their prophet but judging by the reaction here and elsewhere many do not share that view.

Or, and I think this is what you are saying here. She should have been arrested because there has been no history of people being murdered during the many such public flag desecrations held over the years? Whereas Pamela Geller should have known better and therefore her freedom of speech was somehow abrogated because of that?

So, it isn't really about freedom of speech but something else altogether.

TJMAC77SP
05-08-2015, 09:00 PM
The "sole" responsibility is BS. Even though one is legal and one is illegal, both sides still share part of the responsibility.

If I go to a bar and mouth of to the drunk guy and he punches me, he has committed the illegal act. To that there is no doubt. However, I share in the responsibility for opening my big mouth. I could have avoided the situation instead of instigating it.

If I'm a chick and am the only female around a 30 drunk college guys and get sexually assaulted, they are the ones who broke the law. To that there is no doubt. However, I could have avoided the situation altogether. I put myself in the middle of something that never had to happen.

If I'm a black guy and walk into a KKK meeting and get lynched, the KKK members are the ones breaking the law. They are the one's who should be punished. However, I could have easily avoided the situation.

I hate to bring up this point because I hate teaching it in my classes but, at least in the AF, we talk a lot about risk management. It comes down to whether or not each situation has a reward that outweighs the risk. If we decide that the "reward" is worth the risk then we continue, all the while knowing that we are ACCEPTING THE RISK in order to accomplish our task. Everyone at that "art exhibit" accepted a risk when they attended.

It's funny that you bring up the 'chick' with '30 drunk college guys'. I am kinda surprised you actually used that example. When I first read your post condemning Geller and her group for putting on the contest (and whatever you want to say now that is exactly what you did......condemn them) I thought to myself about the old adage "did you see what she was wearing in public? She was asking for it?"

sandsjames
05-08-2015, 09:00 PM
So, Michelle Manhart should not have been arrested because her reaction was a visceral and quite predictable response to seeing her country's flag desecrated? I realize it only a piece of cloth to you just as there are many Muslims who wouldn't commit murder for a perceived threat to their prophet but judging by the reaction here and elsewhere many do not share that view. If her response included assault then, yes, she should have been. Just as the Muslim's who were shot by the security guard/cop should have been shot (and arrested).


Or, and I think this is what you are saying here. She should have been arrested because there has been no history of people being murdered during the many such public flag desecrations held over the years? Whereas Pamela Geller should have known better and therefore her freedom of speech was somehow abrogated because of that? I really, really don't understand the confusion here.

Protesters, demonstrators, etc, should NOT fear legal repercussions for their actions. It is perfectly within their "rights" to do what they were doing, whether it was the "art exhibit" or the flag stomping. However, they should expect that there may be a response from those who disagree with them.


So, it isn't really about freedom of speech but something else altogether.Sure. I'd agree with that, because the outcome of neither of those cases was about the 1st amendment.

sandsjames
05-08-2015, 09:01 PM
It's funny that you bring up the 'chick' with '30 drunk college guys'. I am kinda surprised you actually used that example. When I first read your post condemning Geller and her group for putting on the contest (and whatever you want to say now that is exactly what you did......condemn them) I thought to myself about the old adage "did you see what she was wearing in public? She was asking for it?"


What would you tell your daughter about putting herself in that situation? Would you say "Go ahead, everything will be fine!"?

sandsjames
05-08-2015, 09:03 PM
When I first read your post condemning Geller and her group for putting on the contest (and whatever you want to say now that is exactly what you did......condemn them)

Absolutely. It was a stupid idea and served no practical purpose. I also condemn KKK meetings, and Black Panther meetings, and other meetings that are about hate. Doesn't mean those people aren't perfectly within their "rights", I just think it's pretty stupid.

TJMAC77SP
05-08-2015, 09:03 PM
What would you tell your daughter about putting herself in that situation? Would you say "Go ahead, everything will be fine!"?

You are really skipping some salient points in your argument. The point isn't what I tell her before she leaves the house it is what I say to her after the assault.

TJMAC77SP
05-08-2015, 09:06 PM
Absolutely. It was a stupid idea and served no practical purpose. I also condemn KKK meetings, and Black Panther meetings, and other meetings that are about hate. Doesn't mean those people aren't perfectly within their "rights", I just think it's pretty stupid.

Ok SJ. Obviously nothing and no one is going to sway you on this but I again urge you to read the two threads with only one issue in your mind....the freedom of speech. Pay close attention to what you (and several of us) there and what you are saying here vs. what Garhkal said there and here.

A bit of a role reversal which is why I brought up the issue to begin with.

Enjoy you weekend.

sandsjames
05-08-2015, 09:07 PM
You are really skipping some salient points in your argument. The point isn't what I tell her before she leaves the house it is what I say to her after the assault.

Good to know. You wouldn't teach your daughter to avoid dangerous situations?

I think, with my daughter, I'd do everything I could to help her avoid getting assaulted so I wouldn't have to worry about the consequences afterward. But that's just me.

TJMAC77SP
05-08-2015, 09:08 PM
Good to know. You wouldn't teach your daughter to avoid dangerous situations.

I think, with my daughter, I'd do everything I could to help her avoid getting assaulted so I wouldn't have to worry about the consequences afterward. But that's just me.

As I said, enjoy your weekend.

sandsjames
05-08-2015, 09:09 PM
Ok SJ. Obviously nothing and no one is going to sway you on this but I again urge you to read the two threads with only one issue in your mind....the freedom of speech. Pay close attention to what you (and several of us) there and what you are saying here vs. what Garhkal said there and here.

A bit of a role reversal which is why I brought up the issue to begin with.

Enjoy you weekend.

Not sure what the role reversal is.

Holding the art exhibit was stupid, but legal. The response by the terrorists was illegal, but expected.

Stomping on the flag was stupid, but legal. The response by Playboy TI was illegal, but expected.

What's the reversal?

sandsjames
05-08-2015, 09:10 PM
As I said, enjoy your weekend.

Figured you wouldn't have an answer, since it would contradict the point you're trying to make.

Bos Mutus
05-08-2015, 09:18 PM
Absolutely. It was a stupid idea and served no practical purpose.

I am in agreement with you for the most part...except for this part. I get the point that you are not excusing or agreeing withe shooters...but, I'm less inclin
ed to condemn the art exhibit.

I was just watching "The Butler" last night and this just reminded moe of the lunch counter scene....so, when the black students go and sit at the lunch counter and ask to be served...they know good and well they are not going to be served. They know good and well they are going to be harassed, hit, spit on, arrested...in fact, they prepare for that...I don't think that equates to them "deserving what they got."

Yes, they could have sat at the black counter...kept quiet...but their whole point was to ignite a spark for change..that was their point of doing it...to raise up the issue.

Now, I'm sure on 99% of the issues, I'd probably find this Geller lady insane...but, this "art exhibit" was more than likely similar to that lunch counter incident...she did it, I think, to provoke a reaction, possibly even a violent one...to ignite more criticism of the response expected from Muslims. Not sure she planned on it being a shooting, but I think she probably expected some pissed off Muslims to visit.

sandsjames
05-08-2015, 09:27 PM
I was just watching "The Butler" last night and this just reminded moe of the lunch counter scene....so, when the black students go and sit at the lunch counter and ask to be served...they know good and well they are not going to be served. They know good and well they are going to be harassed, hit, spit on, arrested...in fact, they prepare for that...I don't think that equates to them "deserving what they got
Yes, they could have sat at the black counter...kept quiet...but their whole point was to ignite a spark for change..that was their point of doing it...to raise up the issue.

Now, I'm sure on 99% of the issues, I'd probably find this Geller lady insane...but, this "art exhibit" was more than likely similar to that lunch counter incident...she did it, I think, to provoke a reaction, possibly even a violent one...to ignite more criticism of the response expected from Muslims. Not sure she planned on it being a shooting, but I think she probably expected some pissed off Muslims to visit.
Right, the blacks knew what was going to happen because there is a long history of it happening. There is a history of them not being allowed at the counter, yet they were willing to be spit on...they were prepared for it.

Prior to this exhibit, there was no history of radical islamists attacking or trying to shut down art exhibits in this country.

Bos Mutus
05-08-2015, 09:31 PM
Prior to this exhibit, there was no history of radical islamists attacking or trying to shut down art exhibits in this country.


???? Then why should the exhibitors have expected what happened?

sandsjames
05-08-2015, 09:35 PM
???? Then why should the exhibitors have expected what happened?Sigh...Because the intent of the exhibit was to illicit that response. Because the exhibit was help specifically to make fun of the one thing that is ALWAYS sure to create hostility, even with the most moderate Muslims.

Bos Mutus
05-08-2015, 09:42 PM
Sigh...Because the intent of the exhibit was to illicit that response. Because the exhibit was help specifically to make fun of the one thing that is ALWAYS sure to create hostility, even with the most moderate Muslims.

Sigh all you want, you are the one being inconsistent there.

The blacks at the lunch counter expected the response they got...in fact, that was their point for doing it.

The art exhibitors expected a angry response...and got exactly that.

In these cases, the actions are specifically undertaken in order to make a politically important point...not "for no practical purpose"...which is the only thing I disagree with you in this thread.

Unlike the lack of wisdom of a girl dressing sexily and hanging out with 30 drunk college guys...although it's also possible she is doing so to raise awareness of sexual assault...I don't think that's what you were talking about.

I think this art exhibit was more of an intentional political protest, of sorts that just a group of people who really wanted to hae a drawing contest.

TJMAC77SP
05-08-2015, 09:48 PM
Figured you wouldn't have an answer, since it would contradict the point you're trying to make.

Actually I have no desire to engage further in a discussion in which I am pretty sure you know that, with regard to my point, you are so far down the rabbit hole as to be embarrassing.

This point is further illustrated by your inane and completely unresponsive drival such as "Good to know. You wouldn't teach your daughter to avoid dangerous situations.

I think, with my daughter, I'd do everything I could to help her avoid getting assaulted so I wouldn't have to worry about the consequences afterward. But that's just me. "

Yeah (even if I had daughters) I would be perfectly fine with them being gang raped and I wouldn't teach her any avoidance measures. Talk about stupidity.

Had to throw in the "Playboy TI" comment? Do you think that somehow bolstered this completely inane position where you refuse, just frapping refuse to see the hypocrisy between your words on the flag thread and this one? You think that did the trick? Put you over the top?

You just keep digging. Now this jewel..."Prior to this exhibit, there was no history of radical islamists attacking or trying to shut down art exhibits in this country." That is the specious comment of the week winner. So we should look at micro-specific responses in planning and dealing with Islamic Terrorists? There is no 'long history' of shooting up art contests so there was no way to predict the reaction although Gellar and her group should have known what was going to happen and were therefore partially responsible.......

So, the flag protestors had no inclination that their actions would cause 'hostility' but Geller knew hers would? Is that what you are saying here?

"Sigh...Because the intent of the exhibit was to illicit that response. Because the exhibit was help specifically to make fun of the one thing that is ALWAYS sure to create hostility, even with the most moderate Muslims."

sandsjames
05-08-2015, 10:23 PM
Actually I have no desire to engage further in a discussion in which I am pretty sure you know that, with regard to my point, you are so far down the rabbit hole as to be embarrassing. Ok...take your ball and go home.


This point is further illustrated by your inane and completely unresponsive drival such as "Good to know. You wouldn't teach your daughter to avoid dangerous situations. I apologize for this. I have edited the original post. It was supposed to be a question, not a statement.



Yeah (even if I had daughters) I would be perfectly fine with them being gang raped and I wouldn't teach her any avoidance measures. Talk about stupidity. I agree. It's much better to teach avoidance. That's my entire point.


Had to throw in the "Playboy TI" comment? Do you think that somehow bolstered this completely inane position where you refuse, just frapping refuse to see the hypocrisy between your words on the flag thread and this one? You think that did the trick? Put you over the top? Actually, I did it because I couldn't remember her name and was too lazy to go back and look for it. Glad you liked it, though.


You just keep digging. Now this jewel..."Prior to this exhibit, there was no history of radical islamists attacking or trying to shut down art exhibits in this country." That is the specious comment of the week winner. So we should look at micro-specific responses in planning and dealing with Islamic Terrorists? There is no 'long history' of shooting up art contests so there was no way to predict the reaction although Gellar and her group should have known what was going to happen and were therefore partially responsible....... They were partially responsible. Everything isn't always black and white, though I know in today's political environment it seems that way.


So, the flag protestors had no inclination that their actions would cause 'hostility' but Geller knew hers would? Is that what you are saying here? When's the last time someone was executed, or attacked, for stomping on the flag?

sandsjames
05-08-2015, 10:26 PM
Sigh all you want, you are the one being inconsistent there.

The blacks at the lunch counter expected the response they got...in fact, that was their point for doing it.

The art exhibitors expected a angry response...and got exactly that.

In these cases, the actions are specifically undertaken in order to make a politically important point...not "for no practical purpose"...which is the only thing I disagree with you in this thread.

Unlike the lack of wisdom of a girl dressing sexily and hanging out with 30 drunk college guys...although it's also possible she is doing so to raise awareness of sexual assault...I don't think that's what you were talking about.

I think this art exhibit was more of an intentional political protest, of sorts that just a group of people who really wanted to hae a drawing contest.

The blacks were protesting not being treated equally. I have no idea what the art exhibit was protesting.

Bos Mutus
05-08-2015, 10:31 PM
The blacks were protesting not being treated equally. I have no idea what the art exhibit was protesting.

The unreasonableness of Muslims, I suppose.

sandsjames
05-08-2015, 10:33 PM
The unreasonableness of Muslims, I suppose.I suppose...they sure proved that point. Not sure what progress that makes with anything.

Maybe that's my problem with this. I don't see how this display serves a purpose towards any kind of progression. What was the possible good side of it? Everyone already knows these terrorists are nuts. This exhibit isn't going to change that.

The ONLY outcome of any note that could have possibly happened was for an attack to take place. If there wasn't an attack then there wouldn't have been a message.

TJMAC77SP
05-08-2015, 10:45 PM
Ok...take your ball and go home.

I apologize for this. I have edited the original post. It was supposed to be a question, not a statement.


I agree. It's much better to teach avoidance. That's my entire point.

Actually, I did it because I couldn't remember her name and was too lazy to go back and look for it. Glad you liked it, though.

They were partially responsible. Everything isn't always black and white, though I know in today's political environment it seems that way.

When's the last time someone was executed, or attacked, for stomping on the flag?

Yeah, Lord knows I am famous (or infamous) for 'taking my ball and going home". Yeah, that's me all over.

The Playboy TI's name (Michelle Manhart) was in my post which you had already quoted. In fact she was also named in the flag thread.

My point has nothing, zero, zilch to do with who was wrong and to what degree. My entire point, again, is the obvious hypocrisy between this thread and the flag thread when there was zero discussion of the protestors, their motivation, whether they should have expected visceral, near violent reactions, etc. Everything else is a distraction, to include whether or not a girl dressed provocatively or who puts herself in a bad situation bears some degree of blame for any negative consequences. I have a feeling you will hear about that, assuming we still have any females left on the MTF.

I have never raised the issue as black and white. In fact it is usually me who seems intricacy in most situations treated as black and white. Again, this has nothing to do with my point.

TJMAC77SP
05-08-2015, 10:48 PM
I suppose...they sure proved that point. Not sure what progress that makes with anything.

Maybe that's my problem with this. I don't see how this display serves a purpose towards any kind of progression. What was the possible good side of it? Everyone already knows these terrorists are nuts. This exhibit isn't going to change that.

The ONLY outcome of any note that could have possibly happened was for an attack to take place. If there wasn't an attack then there wouldn't have been a message.

The gift that keeps on giving.........

What was the purpose of the flag protest?

It was a cartoon contest btw. Not a huge deal but salient. Salient because it has been cartoons of Muhammad which have gotten people killed. I agree that it hasn't happened here. Not sure what difference that makes but it seemed important to you so I concede that.

sandsjames
05-08-2015, 10:51 PM
Yeah, Lord knows I am famous (or infamous) for 'taking my ball and going home". Yeah, that's me all over.

The Playboy TI's name (Michelle Manhart) was in my post which you had already quoted. In fact she was also named in the flag thread.

My point has nothing, zero, zilch to do with who was wrong and to what degree. My entire point, again, is the obvious hypocrisy between this thread and the flag thread when there was zero discussion of the protestors, their motivation, whether they should have expected visceral, near violent reactions, etc. Everything else is a distraction, to include whether or not a girl dressed provocatively or who puts herself in a bad situation bears some degree of blame for any negative consequences. I have a feeling you will hear about that, assuming we still have any females left on the MTF.

I have never raised the issue as black and white. In fact it is usually me who seems intricacy in most situations treated as black and white. Again, this has nothing to do with my point.

For it to be hypocrisy would mean that I argued the opposite in the flag thread. I'm pretty sure I did not.

I don't care what the Playboy TI's name is...it wasn't used for any other purpose than I was too lazy to go back and look it up in another thread. I didn't feel it was important.

And to say that the people at the exhibit shouldn't have expected a violent reaction is naïve.

Let the females say what they want. When you knowingly put yourself in a dangerous situation then you bear some responsibility. You aren't to blame, but you bear some responsibility.

Bos Mutus
05-08-2015, 10:52 PM
Maybe that's my problem with this. I don't see how this display serves a purpose towards any kind of progression. .

Well, yes, that is my only disagreement with you on this.

Sometimes, when someone is full of bullshit and insanity, it is incumbent upon the sane, reasonable people to call them on it.

sandsjames
05-08-2015, 10:55 PM
The gift that keeps on giving.........

What was the purpose of the flag protest? To show feeling mistreatment by the government and law enforcement.


It was a cartoon contest btw. Not a huge deal but salient. Salient because it has been cartoons of Muhammad which have gotten people killed. I agree that it hasn't happened here. Not sure what difference that makes but it seemed important to you so I concede that.Right, very similar to having an art display of confederate flags. Do you thing anyone would have a problem with that? Would you expect backlash? I would if I was involved.

sandsjames
05-08-2015, 10:58 PM
Well, yes, that is my only disagreement with you on this.

Sometimes, when someone is full of bullshit and insanity, it is incumbent upon the sane, reasonable people to call them on it.

I just think there's better ways.

Now, I would be fully supportive of the people oppressed and controlled by people in Muslim countries to do something like this, as it is a way of saying "we won't be oppressed anymore and we're willing to pay the price for it". They would have my complete backing. But those "protesting" in this case were under no oppression.

Bos Mutus
05-08-2015, 11:06 PM
I just think there's better ways.

There might be...which is why my first reply in this thread was a "maybe"

My only disagreement is your dismissal of this "art exhibit" as pointless and serving no purpose...i disagree with that


Now, I would be fully supportive of the people oppressed and controlled by people in Muslim countries to do something like this, as it is a way of saying "we won't be oppressed anymore and we're willing to pay the price for it". They would have my complete backing. But those "protesting" in this case were under no oppression.

So, what about white people who protested racism? You won't support them cuz they're not being oppressed? What BS. They don't have to be oprressed to display/express criticism of Muslims...and have a valid point. I say, let's have these exhibits everywhere now...everytime they react violently, do 10 more. You want to come to the political table and deal reasonably, then we'll talk.

Just like...oh, we had "anti-Apartheid" protests in the U.S., too...doesn't matter, there doesn't have to be a "only the oppressed may criticize" rule...screw that...maybe as people who are not under oppression we have a moral duty to our fellow man to stand up for them.....

sandsjames
05-08-2015, 11:14 PM
So, what about white people who protested racism? You won't support them cuz they're not being oppressed? What BS. They don't have to be oprressed to display/express criticism of Muslims...and have a valid point. I say, let's have these exhibits everywhere now...everytime they react violently, do 10 more. You want to come to the political table and deal reasonably, then we'll talk.

Just like...oh, we had "anti-Apartheid" protests in the U.S., too...doesn't matter, there doesn't have to be a "only the oppressed may criticize" rule...screw that...maybe as people who are not under oppression we have a moral duty to our fellow man to stand up for them.....

You mean stand up for them like sending our troops to die for them for the last 23 years? Yeah, we definitely need to do more to stand up for them.

I know I'll get nailed for saying this, but I wouldn't want to be part of your suggestion. There are many, many more moderate Muslims than there are extremists. When we make fun of the religious beliefs of the extremists, we are also shitting all over the beliefs of the moderates...the ones who aren't causing problems.

I don't like people making fun of my religion. I'm not going to do it to others. Not to the extent of taking the thing they hold most dear and throwing it in their face. Do I care how the extremists feel about it? Nope. Not one bit. They can all fall into a pit tomorrow and I wouldn't lose any sleep. But there are millions and millions of others who haven't done a thing to harm us, who live next to us, work with us, etc. I want no part of it.

If this were a Muslim group doing an art exhibit of Jesus getting raped by a donkey in order to piss of the Christian extremists, the people arguing against me in this thread would be on the other side.

Bos Mutus
05-08-2015, 11:37 PM
You mean stand up for them like sending our troops to die for them for the last 23 years? Yeah, we definitely need to do more to stand up for them.

That's only part of the equation. I think social commentary has a place, too.


I know I'll get nailed for saying this, but I wouldn't want to be part of your suggestion. There are many, many more moderate Muslims than there are extremists. When we make fun of the religious beliefs of the extremists, we are also shitting all over the beliefs of the moderates...the ones who aren't causing problems.


I don't really disagree with you on this, either. I agree, offending the millions of moderate Muslims isn't nice.


I don't like people making fun of my religion. I'm not going to do it to others. Not to the extent of taking the thing they hold most dear and throwing it in their face. Do I care how the extremists feel about it? Nope. Not one bit. They can all fall into a pit tomorrow and I wouldn't lose any sleep. But there are millions and millions of others who haven't done a thing to harm us, who live next to us, work with us, etc. I want no part of it.

Fair enough...as I said, I don't know if it's the best way to handle things...but, I think there is a political statement to it. Just like many Catholics never abused children, but when Sinead O"Connor ripped up the Pope, she was expression her dissatisfaction with the institution...


If this were a Muslim group doing an art exhibit of Jesus getting raped by a donkey in order to piss of the Christian extremists, the people arguing against me in this thread would be on the other side.

I don't think I would. What do you think my argument would be?

sandsjames
05-09-2015, 12:05 AM
That's only part of the equation. I think social commentary has a place, too.




I don't really disagree with you on this, either. I agree, offending the millions of moderate Muslims isn't nice.



Fair enough...as I said, I don't know if it's the best way to handle things...but, I think there is a political statement to it. Just like many Catholics never abused children, but when Sinead O"Connor ripped up the Pope, she was expression her dissatisfaction with the institution...



I don't think I would. What do you think my argument would be?

No, I believe you'd make the same argument you currently are.

TJMAC77SP
05-09-2015, 01:17 AM
For it to be hypocrisy would mean that I argued the opposite in the flag thread. I'm pretty sure I did not.

I don't care what the Playboy TI's name is...it wasn't used for any other purpose than I was too lazy to go back and look it up in another thread. I didn't feel it was important.

And to say that the people at the exhibit shouldn't have expected a violent reaction is naïve.

Let the females say what they want. When you knowingly put yourself in a dangerous situation then you bear some responsibility. You aren't to blame, but you bear some responsibility.

I am not sure how clearer I can make this. At this point I am absolutely positive you get the point because you keep bringing up things which I haven't said nor argued with.

It was and is certainly hypocrisy. You for sure pointed out that both the protesters and the cartoon contest organizers were exercising their freedom of speech. We aren't arguing that point. We agree that in both cases the actions of those two parties planned and executed their action to elicit a passionate and emotional response of some sort. Again no argument.

Again, and again, and again. On the flag thread there was no talk of the protesters bearing some blame for the actions of those who objected to the flag desecration. On this thread Geller's 'blame', 'responsibility' has been a repeated theme. I see that as hypocrisy. Perhaps double standard. Should I use that instead?

BTW: Manhart's name was in this thread. I wrote it in a post and you quoted that post. No need to 'go back to another thread to look it up". Just admit it was a lame snarky quip for Christ's sake and move on.


Finally, please reread this statement and tell me you don't see a severe contradiction...............

"When you knowingly put yourself in a dangerous situation then you bear some responsibility. You aren't to blame, but you bear some responsibility"

What is the difference between blame and responsibility?

Mjölnir
05-09-2015, 01:35 AM
Reading a bit on Pamela Geller, her modus operandi for some time has been provoking Muslims (radicals, extremists, and even moderates), giving speeches and presentations designed to provoke -- she has had many events cancelled due to security concerns. I would say she probably anticipated some sort of negative reaction. A violent one? Probably. A fatal one? Who knows.

As far as the "Draw a Cartoon of Mohammed" event, it is part of our right of free speech to be an ass, to piss of and provoke or stimulate. People acting what you are I would call 'stupidly' (as I would also classify the event) doesn't mean they are responsible when someone else breaks the law as a reaction to them being stupid; not in our society. Now, borrowing from Sun Tzu, --know your enemy-- it could be / should have been anticipated that there would be some type of reaction ... which again ... may have been the whole point "look at how these people are reacting / acting in our society. -- They are savages!" and once getting the reaction that the organizers wanted, they are going to be vocal about proving their point (a predetermined outcome if you will.)

I thought of this as I was picking up my lawnmower from the shop today:

The lawnmower shop had about 20 lawnmowers and other pieces of equipment out front, all tagged etc. Now, none of them were chained down or secured in any way, so if I just walked up and rolled one away, is the shop responsible for me being a thief? Even if they 'tempted' me by leaving the equipment out there, I am responsible for my actions that break 'common decency & expected behavior' in our society. Granted, people are going to behave outside the accepted norms of behavior in every society, sometimes it will just be eccentric behavior, sometimes people being crude / rude, sometimes it will be criminal behavior.

In the micro sense, the event in TX could be considered ill-advised, local law enforcement anticipated a reaction and had extra security there. While there had not been a shooting or violent reaction at an art exhibit (I don't know if this would really be called art ... I digress), but there have been several incidents in the U.S. of radicalized Muslim activity.

In the macro sense, one thing that the doctrine of extremists aims to do is make people fear to carry out our lives as normal, then fear to offend some of their particular sensitivities, then fear to stand up for more fundamental aspects of society -- in some ways you can parallel this progressive desensitization of people to this type of activity is what happened in Germany in the 1930's. Extremists want people to self-censor, it is easier than them doing it themselves. If you can frighten people of the potential result of not sticking their head in the sand, then mission accomplished.


To fight and conquer in all our battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting.

--Sun Tzu

MikeKerriii
05-09-2015, 01:57 AM
The "sole" responsibility is BS. Even though one is legal and one is illegal, both sides still share part of the responsibility.

If I go to a bar and mouth of to the drunk guy and he punches me, he has committed the illegal act. To that there is no doubt. However, I share in the responsibility for opening my big mouth. I could have avoided the situation instead of instigating it.

If I'm a chick and am the only female around a 30 drunk college guys and get sexually assaulted, they are the ones who broke the law. To that there is no doubt. However, I could have avoided the situation altogether. I put myself in the middle of something that never had to happen.

If I'm a black guy and walk into a KKK meeting and get lynched, the KKK members are the ones breaking the law. They are the one's who should be punished. However, I could have easily avoided the situation.

I hate to bring up this point because I hate teaching it in my classes but, at least in the AF, we talk a lot about risk management. It comes down to whether or not each situation has a reward that outweighs the risk. If we decide that the "reward" is worth the risk then we continue, all the while knowing that we are ACCEPTING THE RISK in order to accomplish our task. Everyone at that "art exhibit" accepted a risk when they attended.

Every tired victim blaming cliche normally used all in one place, with the exception of "what she was wearing" . People are not responsible for the savagery of others.

MikeKerriii
05-09-2015, 02:05 AM
The blacks were protesting not being treated equally. I have no idea what the art exhibit was protesting.

What they intended to prove the proved very successfully, that a small minority of Muslims will act lijke savages while thinking they are following their god. They would have failed except for those two scumbags becasue most Muslim organizations were telling folks to ignore Gellar.

sandsjames
05-09-2015, 03:03 AM
I am not sure how clearer I can make this. At this point I am absolutely positive you get the point because you keep bringing up things which I haven't said nor argued with.

It was and is certainly hypocrisy. You for sure pointed out that both the protesters and the cartoon contest organizers were exercising their freedom of speech. We aren't arguing that point. We agree that in both cases the actions of those two parties planned and executed their action to elicit a passionate and emotional response of some sort. Again no argument.

Again, and again, and again. On the flag thread there was no talk of the protesters bearing some blame for the actions of those who objected to the flag desecration. On this thread Geller's 'blame', 'responsibility' has been a repeated theme. I see that as hypocrisy. Perhaps double standard. Should I use that instead? Right, there was no talk of the protesters bearing blame. As a matter of fact, I don't remember blaming anybody for anything in the flag thread. I simply said that I agree with the right to desecrate the flag, just as I agree with the right to have an art exhibit. I think you are really confused on what hypocrisy is. Very, very confused.


BTW: Manhart's name was in this thread. I wrote it in a post and you quoted that post. No need to 'go back to another thread to look it up". Just admit it was a lame snarky quip for Christ's sake and move on. When I'm typing a reply and there is something I need from a prior page, that means I have to exit my response in order to change pages. On a government computer, which runs slow as shit when loading pages on this forum, that can take 2 or 3 minutes. So, because I forgot her name, I referred to her in a manner that everyone understood. it wasn't snarky. It was lazy. Now get over it. It's irrelevant.



Finally, please reread this statement and tell me you don't see a severe contradiction...............

"When you knowingly put yourself in a dangerous situation then you bear some responsibility. You aren't to blame, but you bear some responsibility"

What is the difference between blame and responsibility?If my child throws a rock through your window, it's his fault. He did it. However, as a parent, I hold some of the responsibility. I wasn't the one who committed the crime but I'm still partially responsible. Is that good enough for you? I'd imagine not.

sandsjames
05-09-2015, 03:06 AM
I thought of this as I was picking up my lawnmower from the shop today:

The lawnmower shop had about 20 lawnmowers and other pieces of equipment out front, all tagged etc. Now, none of them were chained down or secured in any way, so if I just walked up and rolled one away, is the shop responsible for me being a thief? Even if they 'tempted' me by leaving the equipment out there, I am responsible for my actions that break 'common decency & expected behavior' in our society. Granted, people are going to behave outside the accepted norms of behavior in every society, sometimes it will just be eccentric behavior, sometimes people being crude / rude, sometimes it will be criminal behavior. I'd bet that if they were supposed to be locked up and one was stolen, who ever was on shift who was supposed to lock them up would be held responsible, maybe be docked some pay, or maybe even be fired. The boss wouldn't say..."Oh, no biggy, they shouldn't have stolen it. It's not on you".

sandsjames
05-09-2015, 03:07 AM
What they intended to prove the proved very successfully, that a small minority of Muslims will act lijke savages while thinking they are following their god. They would have failed except for those two scumbags becasue most Muslim organizations were telling folks to ignore Gellar.We already knew they would act like that. We already knew they were savages. There was nothing to prove.

Mjölnir
05-09-2015, 03:11 AM
I'd bet that if they were supposed to be locked up and one was stolen, who ever was on shift who was supposed to lock them up would be held responsible, maybe be docked some pay, or maybe even be fired. The boss wouldn't say..."Oh, no biggy, they shouldn't have stolen it. It's not on you".

But the point was whether the shop bears responsibility for me being a thief? IMO, just because they made it easy for me to be a criminal doesn't make them responsible for me being a criminal.

Mjölnir
05-09-2015, 03:14 AM
We already knew they would act like that. We already knew they were savages. There was nothing to prove.

We could have predicted that this would happen, maybe not at this particular event but have enough of these events, publicize it enough and eventually we could have counted on it happening -- the law of averages if you will.

But ... I don't think it was about proving the point but making the point ... being able to say "I told you so."

TJMAC77SP
05-09-2015, 04:35 AM
Right, there was no talk of the protesters bearing blame. As a matter of fact, I don't remember blaming anybody for anything in the flag thread. I simply said that I agree with the right to desecrate the flag, just as I agree with the right to have an art exhibit. I think you are really confused on what hypocrisy is. Very, very confused.

No not so confused. Your own words tell the story. You didn't blame anyone in the flag thread but did here and yet both acts were designed to inflame the emotions of a certain segment of the population. Perhaps I have been giving you way too much credit over the years.


When I'm typing a reply and there is something I need from a prior page, that means I have to exit my response in order to change pages. On a government computer, which runs slow as shit when loading pages on this forum, that can take 2 or 3 minutes. So, because I forgot her name, I referred to her in a manner that everyone understood. it wasn't snarky. It was lazy. Now get over it. It's irrelevant.

I am over it. No problem. You are full of shit but I am over it.


If my child throws a rock through your window, it's his fault. He did it. However, as a parent, I hold some of the responsibility. I wasn't the one who committed the crime but I'm still partially responsible. Is that good enough for you? I'd imagine not.

What the hell does this even mean? How in God's name does this relate to blaming parties in one thread and failing to do so in another?

garhkal
05-09-2015, 05:37 AM
What I'm saying is that, if these "artists" want to be "soldiers" then they better expect some deaths in battle.

No, it's not. It's people saying "We weren't making these pictures before, but this time we will just to antagonize.

This isn't like the Boston Tea Party. This isn't a revolt against something that was already occurring. This was the creating of a situation in order to cause a specific, and expected, outcome.

From watching Ms Geller on fox, it seems exactly that this was done to show that we won't be cowed into silence. NOT just done to antagonize..


I am curious as to your response about the Dutch politician who was the keynote speaker at this "event", though. Was it ok for him to be targeted, as he isn't protected by our Constitution?

He may not be protected by the constitution of our country, but don't the Dutch have a similar "Free speech law/protection'?


Submerge an image of Jesus Christ in a jar of urine and call it "art". Radical Christians protest and vandalize an image of the work. Christians called intolerant.

Draw an image of Mohammed. Radical Muslims shoot up a magazine office and an exhibition. Artists called intolerant.

Hold a draw an image of Mohammed contest. Radical Muslims show up to shoot people, brought down by security. Organizers called irresponsible.

Exactly. Plus while some rabid Christians may want to destroy the art, i have not heard of any calling for the killing of the artists. Unlike with the Muslims and anything to do with Mohammed.


Right, the blacks knew what was going to happen because there is a long history of it happening. There is a history of them not being allowed at the counter, yet they were willing to be spit on...they were prepared for it.

Prior to this exhibit, there was no history of radical islamists attacking or trying to shut down art exhibits in this country.

Maybe not in America. BUT there has been plenty of evidence of it going on over seas. Such as the aforementioned CHarlie Hebdo attack. The one from iirc 06-07 where those dutch cartoonists were threatened cause of their picture. Salman Rushdie's Satanic verses.


The unreasonableness of Muslims, I suppose.

More like the hypocrisy of Muslims who consistently call for us to be tolerant of them while showing NO tolerance for us..


In the micro sense, the event in TX could be considered ill-advised, local law enforcement anticipated a reaction and had extra security there. While there had not been a shooting or violent reaction at an art exhibit (I don't know if this would really be called art ... I digress), but there have been several incidents in the U.S. of radicalized Muslim activity.

In the macro sense, one thing that the doctrine of extremists aims to do is make people fear to carry out our lives as normal, then fear to offend some of their particular sensitivities, then fear to stand up for more fundamental aspects of society -- in some ways you can parallel this progressive desensitization of people to this type of activity is what happened in Germany in the 1930's. Extremists want people to self-censor, it is easier than them doing it themselves. If you can frighten people of the potential result of not sticking their head in the sand, then mission accomplished.

Well said MJ. It does seem like the Muslims (both moderate and radical) want everyone else to 'self censor' lest they be on the receiving end of violent reactions. And imo those who say we "SHOULD to so, just cause its safer, are giving them what they want.

sandsjames
05-09-2015, 10:44 AM
But the point was whether the shop bears responsibility for me being a thief? IMO, just because they made it easy for me to be a criminal doesn't make them responsible for me being a criminal.Of course they aren't responsible for you being a thief.

sandsjames
05-09-2015, 10:47 AM
We could have predicted that this would happen, maybe not at this particular event but have enough of these events, publicize it enough and eventually we could have counted on it happening -- the law of averages if you will.

But ... I don't think it was about proving the point but making the point ... being able to say "I told you so."

I don't see who the "I told you so" is for. Nobody was surprised by this.

sandsjames
05-09-2015, 10:53 AM
No not so confused. Your own words tell the story. You didn't blame anyone in the flag thread but did here and yet both acts were designed to inflame the emotions of a certain segment of the population. Perhaps I have been giving you way too much credit over the years.Whatever, dude. You're reaching on this but go with it if it makes you feel like you're winning.




I am over it. No problem. You are full of shit but I am over it. It was a nice attempt by you to make the thread about something it's not, though.




What the hell does this even mean? How in God's name does this relate to blaming parties in one thread and failing to do so in another?The question was asked of me as to what the difference is between blame and responsibility, so I was giving an example.

And I didn't fail to do something in another thread. I never attempted it. That wasn't the focus of the thread. Nobody was injured or killed as it related to the flag so there was no need, for anybody, to make that point. But keep your focus about the flag, if you choose.

sandsjames
05-09-2015, 11:04 AM
From watching Ms Geller on fox, it seems exactly that this was done to show that we won't be cowed into silence. NOT just done to antagonize.. Were they forced to be silent prior?




He may not be protected by the constitution of our country, but don't the Dutch have a similar "Free speech law/protection'? Do Dutch laws protect them in our country? Pretty sure they don't. Or are you saying that a person should have freedom of speech, no matter where we are in the world, because the Constitution says they do? Does the Constitution protect me when if I go to Iran? Pretty sure that's not how it works.







Maybe not in America. BUT there has been plenty of evidence of it going on over seas. Such as the aforementioned CHarlie Hebdo attack. The one from iirc 06-07 where those dutch cartoonists were threatened cause of their picture. Salman Rushdie's Satanic verses. Gotcha. So there shouldn't be anymore bitching from anyone when women in this country complain about equal treatment because women around the world, in many other countries, don't have equal treatment.




More like the hypocrisy of Muslims who consistently call for us to be tolerant of them while showing NO tolerance for us..They don't call for us to be tolerant. They call for us to convert. We're all on the same page on this one.




Well said MJ. It does seem like the Muslims (both moderate and radical) want everyone else to 'self censor' lest they be on the receiving end of violent reactions. And imo those who say we "SHOULD to so, just cause its safer, are giving them what they want.
Our argument is always that we are not going to let the terrorists "affect our way of life", which I completely agree with. However, making cartoons of Muhammad was never part of our way of life. Nobody was being silenced.

I think this discussion has pretty much run it's course.

sandsjames
05-09-2015, 11:17 AM
No not so confused. Your own words tell the story. You didn't blame anyone in the flag thread but did here and yet both acts were designed to inflame the emotions of a certain segment of the population. Perhaps I have been giving you way too much credit over the years.Oh dear, I've lost your respect. How will I go on.

There is a thread on here currently that is titled "Why libs think we're nuts". You haven't posted in it once. You always post your opinions when it comes to threads about liberals and conservatives. Why the hypocrisy in that thread? You haven't commented at all on it.

Do you see how ludicrous that sounds?

Bos Mutus
05-09-2015, 03:39 PM
I thought of this as I was picking up my lawnmower from the shop today:

The lawnmower shop had about 20 lawnmowers and other pieces of equipment out front, all tagged etc. Now, none of them were chained down or secured in any way, so if I just walked up and rolled one away, is the shop responsible for me being a thief? Even if they 'tempted' me by leaving the equipment out there, I am responsible for my actions that break 'common decency & expected behavior' in our society. Granted, people are going to behave outside the accepted norms of behavior in every society, sometimes it will just be eccentric behavior, sometimes people being crude / rude, sometimes it will be criminal behavior.

It's a matter of degree. In your case, a reasonable person does not expect those mowers to get stolen. If an employee was lazy and left them out overnight and one or more got stolen, I bet he'd get fired and I'd have no problem with it.

if you bought your daughter a shiney new bicycle, she took it to the park, but didn't use the lock you gave her....I'd think you might be mad at her if it got stolen.

i think people are expected to take reasonable precautions and if they dont, they bear some blame...that blame is not taken off the criminal though. Doesn't make the thief any less of a thief. I would think a civil court at least would agree....if you loaned me your truck and I left it open with the keys in it...I think a judge would hold me liable for not taking reasonable care of your truck

buuuuut.....again in this case, the event was a deliberate provocation, not a simple lack of reasonable care. So, it's more like Bait car....where the cops leave a car with the keys in it in a bad neighborhood and expect it to be stolen. The guy taking the car is still a thief....same as one who stole a car that was reasonably secure

UncaRastus
05-09-2015, 05:35 PM
Mjölnir,

So. Which brand of mower did you 'appropriate'?

I would have went for one of the 0 turning radius mowers, although lawn tractors do have a PTO.

I do own own a John Deere lawn tractor, and I have owned it for the past 9 years, with no complaints. The PTO does expand on the application of the lawn tractor.

I even bought a sun deflecting roof thingy for it. I have added on truck mirrors, an old style hand squeezed oogah horn, and a turn assisting hand knob to the steering wheel.

Oh, shoot. I have gone off topic. Sorry.

TJMAC77SP
05-09-2015, 05:46 PM
Oh dear, I've lost your respect. How will I go on.

There is a thread on here currently that is titled "Why libs think we're nuts". You haven't posted in it once. You always post your opinions when it comes to threads about liberals and conservatives. Why the hypocrisy in that thread? You haven't commented at all on it.

Do you see how ludicrous that sounds?

I wonder sometimes if we read in the same language. My respect for you remains as it is. I do however wonder about your intellect a little more than I used to.

You are really getting desperate. See, your last point might have a (very small) modicum of relativity to my point if you had not posted at all in the flag thread. You did and AGAIN nothing was said about the protesters sharing in the blame for any consequences of their protest. Right off the bat in this thread we see a diatribe against Geller (much like I saw in some media outlets). While I agree she is an attention whore that isn't the point. What is the point is both groups have the right to freedom of speech and chose actions which were sure to stir anger and hostility among certain groups. I see no real difference practically or philosophically with regard to the freedom of speech.

I have nothing to add to the Lib thread. So, to answer your question, yes I see how ludicrous your post sounded.

EDIT: I have endeavored to use plural pronouns about the postings on the flag thread. I departed from that here so to be clear, no one, myself included posted anything like what has been posted here regarding shared blame, motivations for the actions and their obviously expected consequences.

USN - Retired
05-09-2015, 06:20 PM
Muslim behavior/terrorism correlated with population size. Learn more here...

https://heavenawaits.wordpress.com/muslim-behavior-with-population-increase/

sandsjames
05-09-2015, 06:59 PM
EDIT: I have endeavored to use plural pronouns about the postings on the flag thread. I departed from that here so to be clear, no one, myself included posted anything like what has been posted here regarding shared blame, motivations for the actions and their obviously expected consequences.
That's because they are two completely different issues.

TJMAC77SP
05-09-2015, 07:47 PM
That's because they are two completely different issues.

Really? You keep saying that but it isn't remotely true. Of course they are different incidents, different players, different motivations and different outcomes but the issue of freedom of speech remains the same.

Bottom line is that if Pam Geller and her organization shares the blame for the shooting then the flag protesters share the blame for the reactions including Manhart's arrest. Of course that really isn't my argument but it seems to be the one you want to have.

My point is that we were silent on shared blame with the flag protest but not so here. You should have just let the observation lie. Your continued and flawed defense and dismissal of the disparity merely illuminates a refusal to accept facts.

Suddenly the definition of insanity popped into my head.

sandsjames
05-09-2015, 08:42 PM
Really? You keep saying that but it isn't remotely true. Of course they are different incidents, different players, different motivations and different outcomes but the issue of freedom of speech remains the same.

Bottom line is that if Pam Geller and her organization shares the blame for the shooting then the flag protesters share the blame for the reactions including Manhart's arrest.

Of course that really isn't my argument but it seems to be the one you want to have.

My point is that we were silent on shared blame with the flag protest but not so here. You should have just let the observation lie. Your continued and flawed defense and dismissal of the disparity merely illuminates a refusal to accept facts.

Suddenly the definition of insanity popped into my head.From now on I will be sure to make the exact same comments in every thread related to free speech. What I'll do, to avoid being a hypocrite, is just copy and paste from thread to thread. Will that satisfy you?

And I think you really need to look up the definition of "hypocrite".

I understand why you think I'm a hypocrite. You also think that if a news channel reports on one topic (that you disagree) with and doesn't report on a similar one (that you agree with) then they are hypocrites.

Just to save you some time, I would be a hypocrite if I felt that flag girl had the right to protest and the art contest people didn't. I'd be a hypocrite if I said that the art people were idiots but that flag girl was not. Neither of those things happened. I was consistent, in both threads, about the protesters having the right to do what they were doing, even if I disagreed with it.

TJMAC77SP
05-09-2015, 09:57 PM
From now on I will be sure to make the exact same comments in every thread related to free speech. What I'll do, to avoid being a hypocrite, is just copy and paste from thread to thread. Will that satisfy you?

And I think you really need to look up the definition of "hypocrite".

I understand why you think I'm a hypocrite. You also think that if a news channel reports on one topic (that you disagree) with and doesn't report on a similar one (that you agree with) then they are hypocrites.

Just to save you some time, I would be a hypocrite if I felt that flag girl had the right to protest and the art contest people didn't. I'd be a hypocrite if I said that the art people were idiots but that flag girl was not. Neither of those things happened. I was consistent, in both threads, about the protesters having the right to do what they were doing, even if I disagreed with it.

You of course can do whatever you like. I don't think satisfying me is on your agenda. If you were to carry a principle unmodified from one thread to another I think you would be safe from any question.

This isn't about me agreeing with one news channel and not agreeing with another. Although now that you bring it up I have suspected that is the source of the train of thought for some here........something heard on TV or read on the internet.

Once again you are having an argument which I am not providing input. If you (and the rest of us) had said the flag protesters ( I am not sure who the hell the flag girl is. If you are referring to Manhart I think you are confused on what role she played in the drama) were partially to blame for whatever happened as a consequence of their actions AND the organizers of the cartoon contest were also partially to blame for the consequences of their actions then there would be NO double standard (is that term a better fit for you?).

Unfortunately my statement above isn't true because that isn't what happened, thus, a double standard.

TJMAC77SP
05-09-2015, 10:00 PM
Since I am sure we have bored the piss out of the rest of the MTF, just to bring us back to the point I made at the beginning of this mess.....

"But I don't remember any of us characterizing the flag stomping as free speech as going too far and designed only to instigate violence or provoke. It seems while we don’t like the flag stomping we were willing to let it happen without too many questions as to the motivations of the protest organizers.

BTW: For the record, I characterize Pam Geller in the same way as the preacher who burned the Koran. I just found it curious the tone of this thread vs. the flag stomping thread. "

sandsjames
05-09-2015, 10:54 PM
You of course can do whatever you like. I don't think satisfying me is on your agenda. If you were to carry a principle unmodified from one thread to another I think you would be safe from any question.

This isn't about me agreeing with one news channel and not agreeing with another. Although now that you bring it up I have suspected that is the source of the train of thought for some here........something heard on TV or read on the internet.

Once again you are having an argument which I am not providing input. If you (and the rest of us) had said the flag protesters ( I am not sure who the hell the flag girl is. If you are referring to Manhart I think you are confused on what role she played in the drama) were partially to blame for whatever happened as a consequence of their actions AND the organizers of the cartoon contest were also partially to blame for the consequences of their actions then there would be NO double standard (is that term a better fit for you?).

Unfortunately my statement above isn't true because that isn't what happened, thus, a double standard.

No, by flag girl I was referring to the girl stomping on the flag.

No double standard...dead horse being beaten...I hold all parties in both situations to the same standard.

Just to be safe, and not hypocritical, I will say this (because, apparently, asses need to be covered in every thread).

The blame for this argument we're having, the boring of everyone in here, falls on both of us. I started the thread, so I share some of the responsibility because, if I hadn't put myself in this situation, we wouldn't be dragging on, page after page of redundancy.

However, you also are partly to blame because you got involved in it.

Are we good? I'll be sure to ...actually...I'll fix it.

TJMAC77SP
05-10-2015, 01:43 AM
No, by flag girl I was referring to the girl stomping on the flag.

No double standard...dead horse being beaten...I hold all parties in both situations to the same standard.

Just to be safe, and not hypocritical, I will say this (because, apparently, asses need to be covered in every thread).

The blame for this argument we're having, the boring of everyone in here, falls on both of us. I started the thread, so I share some of the responsibility because, if I hadn't put myself in this situation, we wouldn't be dragging on, page after page of redundancy.

However, you also are partly to blame because you got involved in it.

Are we good? I'll be sure to ...actually...I'll fix it.

No asses need be covered. Truth is good though

BTW, we are agreeing on the last part......in fact I already said that............."Since I am sure we have bored the piss out of the rest of the MTF"

sandsjames
05-10-2015, 01:46 AM
No asses need be covered. Truth is good though

BTW, we are agreeing on the last part......in fact I already said that............."Since I am sure we have bored the piss out of the rest of the MTF"Did I say YOU didn't? Oh...that's right. Unless I say specifically that you didn't then I must have, simply by omitting it, meant that you did.

MikeKerriii
05-10-2015, 03:41 PM
We already knew they would act like that. We already knew they were savages. There was nothing to prove.

There was a lot to both prove and expose, moral cowardice such as what you are advocating was exposed, that cowardice being a threat to the ability speak freely was proven also

sandsjames
05-10-2015, 04:07 PM
There was a lot to both prove and expose, moral cowardice such as what you are advocating was exposed, that cowardice being a threat to the ability speak freely was proven alsoYep, that's exactly what I'm advocating. You nailed it.

TJMAC77SP
05-10-2015, 05:06 PM
Did I say YOU didn't? Oh...that's right. Unless I say specifically that you didn't then I must have, simply by omitting it, meant that you did.

Yeah, you kinda said exactly that.

Didn't you say this..............

"The blame for this argument we're having, the boring of everyone in here, falls on both of us. I started the thread, so I share some of the responsibility because, if I hadn't put myself in this situation, we wouldn't be dragging on, page after page of redundancy.

However, you also are partly to blame because you got involved in it."

Since I had already acknowledged my part why was it necessary to explain to me that I shared the blame unless you were saying that I had put all the blame on you?

sandsjames
05-10-2015, 05:13 PM
Yeah, you kinda said exactly that.

Didn't you say this..............

"The blame for this argument we're having, the boring of everyone in here, falls on both of us. I started the thread, so I share some of the responsibility because, if I hadn't put myself in this situation, we wouldn't be dragging on, page after page of redundancy.

However, you also are partly to blame because you got involved in it."

Since I had already acknowledged my part why was it necessary to explain to me that I shared the blame unless you were saying that I had put all the blame on you?


Please show me where I'm saying you didn't take responsibility. I pointed out that you did share responsibility. I don't think that's the same as saying that you aren't accepting any.

And, yes, it's necessary for you to explain it in each post. If you don't, it makes you a hypocrite.

You should be a politician. You're great at manipulating sound bites to your advantage.

TJMAC77SP
05-10-2015, 06:13 PM
Please show me where I'm saying you didn't take responsibility. I pointed out that you did share responsibility. I don't think that's the same as saying that you aren't accepting any.

And, yes, it's necessary for you to explain it in each post. If you don't, it makes you a hypocrite.

You should be a politician. You're great at manipulating sound bites to your advantage.


I already showed where you intimated exactly that. There is no manipulation going on here. Merely restating of actual words used.

Let’s try it with more detail.

I said….”Since I am sure we have bored the piss out of the rest of the MTF, just to bring us back to the point I made at the beginning of this mess.....”

Which clearly used the plural pronoun, thereby including myself in the situation

You replied……….”The blame for this argument we're having, the boring of everyone in here,falls on both of us. I started the thread, so I share some of the responsibility because, if I hadn't put myself in this situation, we wouldn't be dragging on, page after page of redundancy.

However, you also are partly to blame because you got involved in it.”

If the intimation was not that I had not accepted my part then why mentionthat I was indeed partly to blame?

I am certain you are attempting to make some snarky point but I am failing to see anything but incorrectly stated facts regarding our posts.

Absinthe Anecdote
05-10-2015, 06:58 PM
Religion should be called out and ridiculed as often as possible. From the absurdly violent fundamentalist versions of Islam, to be the watered-down versions of nondenominational Christianity.

The Christian voices who believe only in John 3:16 are just as dumb as any adherent of Wahabbi Islam.

Both believe in a load of crap from the Bronze Age.

sandsjames
05-10-2015, 07:16 PM
I already showed where you intimated exactly that. There is no manipulation going on here. Merely restating of actual words used.

Let’s try it with more detail.

I said….”Since I am sure we have bored the piss out of the rest of the MTF, just to bring us back to the point I made at the beginning of this mess.....”

Which clearly used the plural pronoun, thereby including myself in the situation

You replied……….”The blame for this argument we're having, the boring of everyone in here,falls on both of us. I started the thread, so I share some of the responsibility because, if I hadn't put myself in this situation, we wouldn't be dragging on, page after page of redundancy.

However, you also are partly to blame because you got involved in it.”

If the intimation was not that I had not accepted my part then why mentionthat I was indeed partly to blame?

I am certain you are attempting to make some snarky point but I am failing to see anything but incorrectly stated facts regarding our posts.




The intimation was strictly comparing our little tiff to the situation at the art exhibit. Had nothing to do with anything you said.

Anyway, post once more, you can have the last word, and we'll stop boring everyone else.

garhkal
05-10-2015, 09:13 PM
Were they forced to be silent prior?

No, but being threatened with death etc cause of speaking out against them, it does seem that they WANT us to be silent.



Do Dutch laws protect them in our country? Pretty sure they don't. Or are you saying that a person should have freedom of speech, no matter where we are in the world, because the Constitution says they do? Does the Constitution protect me when if I go to Iran? Pretty sure that's not how it works.

That depends. Do we have a recripriocal agreement with them or not?


Gotcha. So there shouldn't be anymore bitching from anyone when women in this country complain about equal treatment because women around the world, in many other countries, don't have equal treatment.

That is not what i was getting at SJ and you damn well know it.
You was asking for proof that Muslims want us to be silent or else.. And i gave you several examples of it. Now it has come here.



Our argument is always that we are not going to let the terrorists "affect our way of life", which I completely agree with. However, making cartoons of Muhammad was never part of our way of life. Nobody was being silenced.


But are you NOT saying "Why did they make this art contest, when all it was, was done to offend" etc.. How is that NOT changing our way of life.?

sandsjames
05-10-2015, 09:42 PM
That is not what i was getting at SJ and you damn well know it.
You was asking for proof that Muslims want us to be silent or else.. And i gave you several examples of it. Now it has come here. I never asked for proof they want us to be silent. Please don't put words in my mouth. I simply made the point that they'd never attacked any art exhibits of ours, until we specifically created one we knew they would attack.




But are you NOT saying "Why did they make this art contest, when all it was, was done to offend" etc.. How is that NOT changing our way of life.?Because our way of life never included instigating crazy people. Though the way this thread is going, that may just be me who doesn't go out of my way to instigate crazy people.

Now dislike my post. It's bringing back memories of the rep wars.

sandsjames
05-10-2015, 09:46 PM
That depends. Do we have a recripriocal agreement with them or not? Ah...ok...now I see. You don't have a problem with non-citizens being protected by our Constitution, as long as there is a "reciprocal agreement." And I'm not sure if we have one or not. I must have missed the part of the Constitution that discussed that. Not saying it's not there, just must have missed it.



That is not what i was getting at SJ and you damn well know it.
You was asking for proof that Muslims want us to be silent or else.. And i gave you several examples of it. Now it has come here.



But are you NOT saying "Why did they make this art contest, when all it was, was done to offend" etc.. How is that NOT changing our way of life.?[/QUOTE]

sandsjames
05-10-2015, 09:47 PM
Religion should be called out and ridiculed as often as possible. From the absurdly violent fundamentalist versions of Islam, to be the watered-down versions of nondenominational Christianity.

The Christian voices who believe only in John 3:16 are just as dumb as any adherent of Wahabbi Islam.

Both believe in a load of crap from the Bronze Age.

That's ok. Jesus loves you anyway.

Absinthe Anecdote
05-11-2015, 01:16 AM
That's ok. Jesus loves you anyway.

No, it is not ok. I just converted to sun worshiping. That giant ball of hydrogen and helium at the center of our solar system doesn't like you telling me that.

It is very pissed off, and you'd better wear the highest SPF sun block when you go outside. Because the first chance it gets, it is going the burn you very bad.

UncaRastus
05-11-2015, 04:38 PM
So, AA ... Into worshipping Sol Invictus, eh! Or is it Mithra? A combination?

sandsjames
05-11-2015, 04:49 PM
No, it is not ok. I just converted to sun worshiping. That giant ball of hydrogen and helium at the center of our solar system doesn't like you telling me that.

You should pursue that. I'd say it's in your best interest to get as close to your God as possible. You can see him. Go towards him.

Bos Mutus
05-11-2015, 05:41 PM
No, it is not ok. I just converted to sun worshiping. That giant ball of hydrogen and helium at the center of our solar system doesn't like you telling me that.

It is very pissed off, and you'd better wear the highest SPF sun block when you go outside. Because the first chance it gets, it is going the burn you very bad.


You should pursue that. I'd say it's in your best interest to get as close to your God as possible. You can see him. Go towards him.

I would suggest going at night when it's not so hot.

Absinthe Anecdote
05-11-2015, 06:05 PM
So, AA ... Into worshipping Sol Invictus, eh! Or is it Mithra? A combination?

No, none of that hogwash for me. That wouldn't be much different than going to a goofy mosque or some lame watered-down Protestant church that cherry picks the bible until they are left clinging to only John 3:16.

Sun worship for me is an admiration of all that hydrogen fusing into helium. Plus, the hydrogen atom is a very squared away atom if you ask me.

With its one positively charged proton and a single negatively charged electron, what is there not to like?

You can draw a cartoon of it, if you want, I don't mind.

UncaRastus
05-11-2015, 06:20 PM
SJ,

Wouldn't the bindings on AA's wings melt, though?

sandsjames
05-11-2015, 06:23 PM
SJ,

Wouldn't the bindings on AA's wings melt, though?

I hope not. Would love to see him make it all the way there. He's no Icarus.

sandsjames
05-11-2015, 07:00 PM
I must commend you coming back and immediately attempting to turn it into a religious argument. Well done. Not gonna work, but well done.

Absinthe Anecdote
05-11-2015, 07:50 PM
I must commend you coming back and immediately attempting to turn it into a religious argument. Well done. Not gonna work, but well done.

From reading your posts on the topic, you are the one who makes it about religion. You sound like you want blasphemous speech to be censored.

Sorry, but free speech would be impossible if we started trying to cater to everyone's religious interpretation of what their God says.

Especially since god's aren't real, and since it is always people who do the talking for their gods.

It is impossible to cater to everyone's definition of what is morally offensive based on religious beliefs.

Solution? Blasphemy is not a crime and it is not subject to censorship, except maybe here on the MTF.

See this emoticon? :mad: That is Muhammad. See this one? :confused: That is Jesus.

sandsjames
05-11-2015, 08:12 PM
See this one? :confused: That is Jesus.And he loves you. Now off to the sun.

Rollyn01
05-12-2015, 01:57 AM
See this emoticon? :mad: That is Muhammad. See this one? :confused: That is Jesus.

:cool: is for the Flying Spaghetti Monster. May He touch you with His Noodly Appendage. R'Amen. :D

Mjölnir
05-12-2015, 02:08 AM
Solution? Blasphemy is not a crime and it is not subject to censorship, except maybe here on the MTF.

Since when?

Bos Mutus
05-12-2015, 02:19 AM
Since when?

While some archaic blasphemy laws still exist on the books, the last time anyone in the U.S. Was charged and convicted With blasphemy was in 1928.

Mjölnir
05-12-2015, 03:32 AM
While some archaic blasphemy laws still exist on the books, the last time anyone in the U.S. Was charged and convicted With blasphemy was in 1928.

I had highlighteed the MTF part of AA's post. I am pretty sure no one has been dinged by a Mod for blasphemy ...