Islam just can't stand images of Mohammed

[dismal]

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.

I will try to keep this focused on positions to make Tom happy.

I brought up your hate for Geller because you seemed to be linking having hate with the right to speak or at least the desirability of one's speech. Your position seemed to be "Geller is a hater of muslims so she should shut up about muslims". My perception that this is your position is reinforced by comments calling for silencing people like: "But do us all a favor and think before opening your mouth next time. Or better yet, just don't open it at all."

I attempted to extrapolate the principles you appeared to be espousing to "Warpoet is a hater of Geller so Warpoet should shut up about Geller".

This does not simply your hate of Geller is the same as Geller's hate of muslims. It only tests the principle of whether haters should be talk about things they hate.

 

[Warpoet]

I will try to keep this focused on positions to make Tom happy.

I brought up your hate for Geller because you seemed to be linking having hate with the right to speak or at least the desirability of one's speech. Your position seemed to be "Geller is a hater of muslims so she should shut up about muslims". My perception that this is your position is reinforced by comments calling for silencing people like: "But do us all a favor and think before opening your mouth next time. Or better yet, just don't open it at all."

You're really struggling.

I don't like Pamela Geller because she is a bigoted cunt who spends far too much time and money fomenting hatred against Muslims. The world would be better off if people like her didn't speak. Just like it would be better off if vicious anti-semites, racists and homophobes did not speak. This is not some unique view of mine - probably most of the sane people in the world agree with me. So why you thought this was some "gotcha" moment for you to pounce on is puzzling.

I attempted to extrapolate the principles you appeared to be espousing to "Warpoet is a hater of Geller so Warpoet should shut up about Geller".

I know. And it was fucking stupid the first time you "attempted" to extrapolate that, and your subsequent attempts at explaining or defending your insinuation haven't made it sound any less fucking stupid. My contempt for Pamela Geller stems from her actual beliefs, whereas her contempt for Arabs and Muslims is based simply on the fact that they're Arabs and Muslims. Thus, she is a bigot, and I am not, which means she should shut up, and I shouldn't.

It's really quite simple, and you appear to be the only person who can't grasp the distinction, assuming you are even being serious and not just dicking around because you think it's clever (it isn't).

 

[dismal]

You're really struggling.

I don't like Pamela Geller because she is a bigoted cunt who spends far too much time and money fomenting hatred against Muslims. The world would be better off if people like her didn't speak. Just like it would be better off if vicious anti-semites, racists and homophobes did not speak. This is not some unique view of mine - probably most of the sane people in the world agree with me. So why you thought this was some "gotcha" moment for you to pounce on is puzzling.

I attempted to extrapolate the principles you appeared to be espousing to "Warpoet is a hater of Geller so Warpoet should shut up about Geller".

I know. And it was fucking stupid the first time you "attempted" to extrapolate that, and your subsequent attempts at explaining or defending your insinuation haven't made it sound any less fucking stupid. My contempt for Pamela Geller stems from her actual beliefs, whereas her contempt for Arabs and Muslims is based simply on the fact that they're Arabs and Muslims. Thus, she is a bigot, and I am not, which means she should shut up, and I shouldn't.

It's really quite simple, and you appear to be the only person who can't grasp the distinction, assuming you are even being serious and not just dicking around because you think it's clever (it isn't).

So your view is not that haters shouldn't speak, it's more that people who express views you disagree with shouldn't speak?

 

[Warpoet]

So your view is not that haters shouldn't speak, it's more that people who express views you disagree with shouldn't speak?

No, it's "people who foment hatred and bigotry against others should not speak even though they have a legal right to do so."

Again, something that most rational people would agree with, and a concept that only you seem to be having difficulty grasping.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

So your view is not that haters shouldn't speak, it's more that people who express views you disagree with shouldn't speak?

No, it's "people who foment hatred and bigotry against others should not speak even though they have a legal right to do so."

Again, something that most rational people would agree with, and a concept that only you seem to be having difficulty grasping.

Well, if they have a legal right to speak, what should stop them from doing so? They're immoral dickheads, so manners and decency aren't going to be preventing them. Are you saying that you don't think that there should be any restrictions on what they're saying beyond their own self-regulation?

 

[Sarpedon]

Well, if they have a legal right to speak, what should stop them from doing so?

Self Control? Manners? Media outlets refusing to pick up their garbage, leaving them to spew their hate from the streetcorner, like a drunken hobo?

 

[dismal]

So your view is not that haters shouldn't speak, it's more that people who express views you disagree with shouldn't speak?

No, it's "people who foment hatred and bigotry against others should not speak even though they have a legal right to do so."

Again, something that most rational people would agree with, and a concept that only you seem to be having difficulty grasping.

I'm only having trouble grasping exactly what your principles are. You clearly have no issues fomenting hatred against Zeller in your speech, so fomenting hatred alone does not seem to be the issue.

You attempt to resolve this by adding "and bigotry against others" to your principle which works as far as it goes if we accept your definition of who and what is and isn't "bigotry".

However, I'm still not clear why you said it would be better if I stopped speaking because I don't recall fomenting either hatred or bigotry.

This is what led me to believe you just want people who disagree with you to shut up.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

You're really struggling.

I don't like Pamela Geller because she is a bigoted cunt who spends far too much time and money fomenting hatred against Muslims. The world would be better off if people like her didn't speak. Just like it would be better off if vicious anti-semites, racists and homophobes did not speak. This is not some unique view of mine - probably most of the sane people in the world agree with me. So why you thought this was some "gotcha" moment for you to pounce on is puzzling.



I know. And it was fucking stupid the first time you "attempted" to extrapolate that, and your subsequent attempts at explaining or defending your insinuation haven't made it sound any less fucking stupid. My contempt for Pamela Geller stems from her actual beliefs, whereas her contempt for Arabs and Muslims is based simply on the fact that they're Arabs and Muslims. Thus, she is a bigot, and I am not, which means she should shut up, and I shouldn't.

It's really quite simple, and you appear to be the only person who can't grasp the distinction, assuming you are even being serious and not just dicking around because you think it's clever (it isn't).

So your view is not that haters shouldn't speak, it's more that people who express views you disagree with shouldn't speak?

You do realize the reason they held this right?

Muslims held a meeting at the same location, an annual meeting where they have a muslim appreciation and being American appreciation sort of thing. The event was prescheduled and paid for, but the date happened right after the attack in France.

There were a lot of protests about Muslims being happy they were Muslims and Americans and denouncing violence.

This led to the decision to hold a hate rally at the same building.

 

[dismal]

So your view is not that haters shouldn't speak, it's more that people who express views you disagree with shouldn't speak?

You do realize the reason they held this right?

Muslims held a meeting at the same location, an annual meeting where they have a muslim appreciation and being American appreciation sort of thing. The event was prescheduled and paid for, but the date happened right after the attack in France.

There were a lot of protests about Muslims being happy they were Muslims and Americans and denouncing violence.

This led to the decision to hold a hate rally at the same building.

What's your point? I don't place qualifiers on who may speak and what they may say or whether they should or should not be shot for doing so, so these details have little relevance to me.

 

[Jayjay]

You do realize the reason they held this right?

Muslims held a meeting at the same location, an annual meeting where they have a muslim appreciation and being American appreciation sort of thing. The event was prescheduled and paid for, but the date happened right after the attack in France.

There were a lot of protests about Muslims being happy they were Muslims and Americans and denouncing violence.

This led to the decision to hold a hate rally at the same building.

What's your point? I don't place qualifiers on who may speak and what they may say or whether they should or should not be shot for doing so, so these details have little relevance to me.

Come again? "Whether they should or should not be shot" is a detail of little relevance to you? I'd say, that it's rather important that anyone should definitely not be shot for merely speaking out.

 

[Warpoet]

Well, if they have a legal right to speak, what should stop them from doing so? They're immoral dickheads, so manners and decency aren't going to be preventing them. Are you saying that you don't think that there should be any restrictions on what they're saying beyond their own self-regulation?

"Should not speak" does not mean "should be forced or pressured not to speak." I'm saying the world would be better off if people like Geller did not speak because they promote bigotry and hatred. No different than the Fred Phelps or David Dukes of the world. I would wager that most reasonable people agree with me.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Well, if they have a legal right to speak, what should stop them from doing so?

Self Control? Manners? Media outlets refusing to pick up their garbage, leaving them to spew their hate from the streetcorner, like a drunken hobo?

Well, they have no self-control or manners. That goes back to their being assholes. My question had to do with how he thinks their speech should be restricted absent self-regulation or legal means. Also, I did a quick google search and couldn't find any mention of the event outside of the right wing blogosphere before the shooting happened, which made it news, so it doesn't seem that there was a great deal of media coverage promoting it.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

You do realize the reason they held this right?

Muslims held a meeting at the same location, an annual meeting where they have a muslim appreciation and being American appreciation sort of thing. The event was prescheduled and paid for, but the date happened right after the attack in France.

There were a lot of protests about Muslims being happy they were Muslims and Americans and denouncing violence.

This led to the decision to hold a hate rally at the same building.

What's your point? I don't place qualifiers on who may speak and what they may say or whether they should or should not be shot for doing so, so these details have little relevance to me.

Just establishing the mindset of the person who put the event together and how it is equivalent with Warpoet's opinion of her.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Well, if they have a legal right to speak, what should stop them from doing so? They're immoral dickheads, so manners and decency aren't going to be preventing them. Are you saying that you don't think that there should be any restrictions on what they're saying beyond their own self-regulation?

"Should not speak" does not mean "should be forced or pressured not to speak." I'm saying the world would be better off if people like Geller did not speak because they promote bigotry and hatred. No different than the Fred Phelps or David Dukes of the world. I would wager that most reasonable people agree with me.

But we're not talking about reasonable people. We're talking about people like Geller and her ilk. I agree with you that the world is better off without their sort. I believe the only argument being made against you is that they should be allowed to make this type of speech if they want to without anyone stopping them, not that there's something valuable about the nature of their speech. Is that an argument you have an issue with?

 

[Warpoet]

I'm only having trouble grasping exactly what your principles are.

Clearly, but that's not my fault. I've explained the key distinction here several times now. You just aren't able to comprehend it.

You attempt to resolve this by adding "and bigotry against others" to your principle which works as far as it goes if we accept your definition of who and what is and isn't "bigotry".

As I said in my first reply to you, most intelligent people can recognize the difference between my contempt for Geller et al and her hatred for anyone who happens to be Arab or Muslim, even if you can't.

However, I'm still not clear why you said it would be better if I stopped speaking because I don't recall fomenting either hatred or bigotry.

This is what led me to believe you just want people who disagree with you to shut up.

Tom requested that we not make this personal, but since you keep trying to drag this back into the mix for some reason, I'm going to respond.

I don't have a problem with people who disagree with me, I have a problem with people who make shitty arguments built on bad logic, refuse to acknowledge problems with said arguments even when given clear explanations, and just generally shit up threads with nonsense. Which is why I said it'd be better for everyone if you just stopped talking.

 

[dismal]

What's your point? I don't place qualifiers on who may speak and what they may say or whether they should or should not be shot for doing so, so these details have little relevance to me.

Come again? "Whether they should or should not be shot" is a detail of little relevance to you? I'd say, that it's rather important that anyone should definitely not be shot for merely speaking out.

I said I don't place qualifiers on whether someone should be shot for speaking.

Hence none of Higgins points affect my view of whether Geller should be shot.

 

[dismal]

I don't have a problem with people who disagree with me, I have a problem with people who make shitty arguments built on bad logic, refuse to acknowledge problems with said arguments even when given clear explanations, and just generally shit up threads with nonsense. Which is why I said it'd be better for everyone if you just stopped talking.

I imagine others have figured out that reading posts is a voluntary act. You can adequately protect yourself without requiring me to shut up.

 

[Warpoet]

But we're not talking about reasonable people. We're talking about people like Geller and her ilk. I agree with you that the world is better off without their sort. I believe the only argument being made against you is that they should be allowed to make this type of speech if they want to without anyone stopping them, not that there's something valuable about the nature of their speech. Is that an argument you have an issue with?

That is not the argument. I said from the beginning that free speech has to be protected. What dismal did was equate my dislike for Geller with her bigotry towards brown folk, which is bullshit, since one is founded on repulsion for someone's actual views, no different than most people would respond to the Westboro crazies or the KKK, and the other is built entirely on prejudice.

It's a simple, clear distinction that shouldn't have required any explanation at all, but he still persists in muddying the waters after countless replies.

- - - Updated - - -

I imagine others have figured out that reading posts is a voluntary act. You can adequately protect yourself without requiring me to shut up.

You're the one who decided to materialize out of nowhere and start tossing out silly equivalences with no logical foundation, so don't complain when you get the response you deserve.

 

[Axulus]

I don't like Pamela Geller because she is a bigoted cunt who spends far too much time and money fomenting hatred against Muslims. The world would be better off if people like her didn't speak. Just like it would be better off if vicious anti-semites, racists and homophobes did not speak. This is not some unique view of mine - probably most of the sane people in the world agree with me. So why you thought this was some "gotcha" moment for you to pounce on is puzzling.

The problem with people like that not speaking would be that their ideas would remain unchallenged. Not speaking does not make the ideas/beliefs go away. Having insane ideas remain unchallenged could be even more dangerous for the world.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

That is not the argument. I said from the beginning that free speech has to be protected.

OK. I was just wondering if you had a disagreement with anything I was arguing.

If you guys are going to have your own little pissing match, would you mind starting your own thread for it and not muddying up this one?