Islam just can't stand images of Mohammed

[untermensche]

I can't yell fire in a crowded theater just for my jollies.

And these fanatics don't get to endanger others just for their jollies.

Provoking someone isn't 'endangering others', it is 'endangering yourself'.

In what world?

If I provoke somebody I have no guarantee who they will commit violence against.

Drawing a picture does not justify violence. Under ANY circumstances.

You make the quantum leap to justification.

Of course it isn't justified, only potential.

Of course violence in response to drawings is an act of insanity.

But this contest was an act of insanity as well.

And what has this contest given us? Do we have knowledge we didn't have before? Do we know anything we didn't know before?

If no knowledge is gained how is it speech?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Why you have to be so provocative against Tom? More kitties might die. Stop it.

I can't yell fire in a crowded theater just for my jollies.

And these fanatics don't get to endanger others just for their jollies.

And you still don't understand the difference between speech that poses an immediate hazard and merely offensive speech.

We ban shouts of "Fire!" because when told of a fire you normally vacate the area without attempting to confirm whether the speaker was telling the truth or not--and people may be hurt in such flight. Thus triggering such flight without adequate reason is a crime.

There is no such threat with these cartoons.

 

[untermensche]

Again, a second graders reading.

The question is one of direct incitement.

People of reason know that a tiny minority of Muslims can be driven to potential violence with certain kinds of direct incitements.

But lets pretend this isn't about direct incitement by fanatics, it's about freedom of speech.

Except there's no direct incitement here. The winning cartoon is in this thread--there's no call to violence in it.

I fully agree it's waving a red flag in front of a bull--but only an animal will respond with violence. By saying we shouldn't do it you are in effect saying that tiny minority are animals.

An adult understands, in this case, the characterization itself is incitement to some, extreme incitement to some.

No message needs to be attached.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Fine, retreat to the level of a second grader.

It takes a second grader to support your position.

I've said my piece in this thread. Your childish points merit childish responses.

Also, I killed another cat. Not because of you, I just wasn't watching where I was driving. Don't feel guilty about that one.

I can confirm this. I saw the cat he hit beside the road a couple of hours ago, birds picking at the carcass.

 

[untermensche]

I can't yell fire in a crowded theater just for my jollies.

And these fanatics don't get to endanger others just for their jollies.

And you still don't understand the difference between speech that poses an immediate hazard and merely offensive speech.

The hazard only need be rational and potential, not immediate.

It is rational, if one has eyes, to expect that a tiny subset of Muslims, the most emotionally unstable of them, could be driven to acts of violence by a contest like this.

The contest served no purpose. That is not a drawing of Mohammed. It is a delusion to think it is.

 

[bilby]

Provoking someone isn't 'endangering others', it is 'endangering yourself'.

In what world?

If I provoke somebody I have no guarantee who they will commit violence against.

A point that would be more telling if I hadn't addressed it. Editing it out of my post doesn't make it go away.

Drawing a picture does not justify violence. Under ANY circumstances.

You make the quantum leap to justification.

No, I provided a series of steps leading up to this point that you edited out when quoting

Of course it isn't justified, only potential.

Of course violence in response to drawings is an act of insanity.

But this contest was an act of insanity as well.

And what has this contest given us? Do we have knowledge we didn't have before? Do we know anything we didn't know before?

If no knowledge is gained how is it speech?

You have said a lot in this thread. But no knowledge has been gained. Speech need not provide new knowledge. Nor does it's vacuousness justify its suppression.

 

[bilby]

And you still don't understand the difference between speech that poses an immediate hazard and merely offensive speech.

The hazard only need be rational and potential, not immediate.

It is rational, if one has eyes, to expect that a tiny subset of Muslims, the most emotionally unstable of them, could be driven to acts of violence by a contest like this.

or indeed by ANYTHING. We must immediately stop doing things, in case those things inspire homicidal rage in emotionally unstable people.

The contest served no purpose. That is not a drawing of Mohammed. It is a delusion to think it is.

So what? People do loads of things that serve no purpose. People watch reality television. That doesn't justify shooting them dead. Unfortunately.

 

[untermensche]

You have said a lot in this thread. But no knowledge has been gained. Speech need not provide new knowledge. Nor does it's vacuousness justify its suppression.

Is suppressing the yelling of fire in crowded theaters a suppression you have concern over as well?

 

[bilby]

You have said a lot in this thread. But no knowledge has been gained. Speech need not provide new knowledge. Nor does it's vacuousness justify its suppression.

Is suppressing the yelling of fire in crowded theaters a suppression you have concern over as well?

No.

 

[untermensche]

Is suppressing the yelling of fire in crowded theaters a suppression you have concern over as well?

No.

So merely saying that speech is being suppressed in not an argument of any kind.

 

[bilby]

No.

So merely saying that speech is being suppressed in not an argument of any kind.

If I had merely said that, then you might have a point.

You seem to have a habit of ignoring the parts of other people's arguments that don't fit with your preconceptions. But ignoring what others say - even editing the bits you don't like out when quoting them - doesn't actually change their position, no matter how much better it makes your arguments sound in your own head.

 

[dismal]

I should have said oozing with hate for Geller. Dripping did not capture it.

Actually, you should have just not said anything at all, since your reasoning was crap. And shockingly, when this is pointed out, you just fall back on your usual safe routine of trite, unfunny one-liners.

I'm not retreating behind anything. I'm merely observing your hate for Geller is transparent in your speech.

 

[Warpoet]

I'm not retreating behind anything. I'm merely observing your hate for Geller is transparent in your speech.

No, that's not what you said. You tried to argue that her and I were one and the same, but your logic was shit, and unsurprisingly, you didn't even try to defend it. So either own up to that or go away. Otherwise, you're just trolling, and doing a shitty job of it at that.

 

[untermensche]

So merely saying that speech is being suppressed in not an argument of any kind.

If I had merely said that, then you might have a point.

You seem to have a habit of ignoring the parts of other people's arguments that don't fit with your preconceptions. But ignoring what others say - even editing the bits you don't like out when quoting them - doesn't actually change their position, no matter how much better it makes your arguments sound in your own head.

Others will be the judge of what your argument amounts to.

As far as I can see it is nothing but the obvious point that speech is being suppressed.

But humans have the ability of rational foresight. And any rational person knows that a useless provocation like this could potentially lead to violence and injury.

In that it is no different from yelling fire in a crowded theater.

So suppressing it is not much of an issue.

 

[Ford]

It's a bit surreal that on an atheist/agnostic board there are members who would give cause to blasphemy laws.

Apparently they think that atheist/agnostic should only challenge Christianity. No one should be allowed to challenge Islamic beliefs.

Careful. You're running awfully low on straw after building so many men.

 

[dismal]

I

I'm not retreating behind anything. I'm merely observing your hate for Geller is transparent in your speech.

No, that's not what you said. You tried to argue that her and I were one and the same, but your logic was shit, and unsurprisingly, you didn't even try to defend it. So either own up to that or go away. Otherwise, you're just trolling, and doing a shitty job of it at that.

No, I understand that your hate is different. You think you are justified in hating the people you hate for the ideas they have while Geller thinks exactly the same thing.

 

[Warpoet]

No, I understand that your hate is different. You think you are justified in hating the people you hate for the ideas they have while Geller thinks exactly the same thing.

Yeah, no. Geller hates Arabs and Muslims writ large, extremists and moderates alike. In fact, she does not even recognize a distinction between the two. She doesn't hate people for their beliefs, she hates them for the beliefs she projects onto them.

Anyone can do a Google search and verify this; it's not my problem if you're too fucking lazy to do the same. But do us all a favor and think before opening your mouth next time. Or better yet, just don't open it at all.

 

[dismal]

No, I understand that your hate is different. You think you are justified in hating the people you hate for the ideas they have while Geller thinks exactly the same thing.

Yeah, no. Geller hates Arabs and Muslims writ large, extremists and moderates alike. In fact, she does not even recognize a distinction between the two. She doesn't hate people for their beliefs, she hates them for the beliefs she projects onto them.

Anyone can do a Google search and verify this; it's not my problem if you're too fucking lazy to do the same. But do us all a favor and think before opening your mouth next time. Or better yet, just don't open it at all.

Damn, now you appear to be hating on me for things you have projected onto me.

But that aside, are you saying it would be ok to hate Muslims for believing things they actually believe? Like you hate Geller for believing things she actually believes?

 

[Warpoet]

Damn, now you appear to be hating on me for things you have projected onto me.

Hate? No, that's far too strong. To me, you're just an annoyance, one who doesn't read, doesn't think before speaking or recognize when he's out of his depth. That, or you're just incredibly bad at trolling.

As to whether the problem here is that I'm projecting on to you, or you just don't know what the fuck you're talking about, I'm happy to let people make up their own minds.

But that aside, are you saying it would be ok to hate Muslims for believing things they actually believe? Like you hate Geller for believing things she actually believes?

No, that isn't going to be put "aside," because it's the entire fucking point and it completely demolishes your argument. This started because you decided to toss out the moronic insinuation that my contempt for Geller - the same contempt I have for virulent anti-semites, racists, homophobes and the like - was the same as her broad-brush hatred of Arabs and Muslims. It isn't. They are entirely separate animals.

And you aren't going to just tip-toe your away around acknowledging this and admitting that your premise was a load of shit. So stop obfuscating and own up already.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

:mod: