Islam just can't stand images of Mohammed

[dismal]

I don't disagree with the sentiment, but I reject the premise that my free speech rights are contingent upon someone else thinking the content of my speech has some valid purpose.

Don't you think freedom of speech has a valid purpose? There needs to be a vigorous defense for freedom of speech, including more controversial speeches like blasphemy, etc.

The primary benefit of free speech is not having to entrust the policing of speech and related enforcement to anyone. It also helps to identify the idiots.

 

[Axulus]

A black family moving into an all white neighborhood is a direct provocation to some white racists who may be living in that neighborhood. If the family moving in incites them to violence against that family, we should criticize that family, right Ford and untermensche?

Also, Rosa Parks sitting at the front of the bus was a direct provocation to the white racists, inciting some to violence. Shame on her.

 

[Axulus]

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

I don't think they would support laws, but they definitely advocate strong self-censorship.

 

[Trausti]

Think of all the "provocation" directed at Scientology. Should Trey and Matt be told to stop their irresponsible behavior? Should we blame them if a Scientologist was to cause them harm; or harm to someone laughing at their cartoons? Clearly, making fun of Scientologists is "punching down."

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Again, a second graders reading.

The question is one of direct incitement.

Were the people at the "conference" passing out flyers to Muslims directing them to shoot people?

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

Should we close Planned Parenthood clinics because of Eric Rudolph?

- - - Updated - - -

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

Maybe one or two members.

 

[skepticalbip]

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.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Don't you think freedom of speech has a valid purpose? There needs to be a vigorous defense for freedom of speech, including more controversial speeches like blasphemy, etc.

The primary benefit of free speech is not having to entrust the policing of speech and related enforcement to anyone. It also helps to identify the idiots.

It already is, within reasonable limits.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Ironic part is, drawing of Mohammed is forbidden for muslims only.

That isn't irony, that is a contradiction. The irony is that the rule was allegedly created in order to keep people from worshiping an image verses the message... and in the end, they are worshiping the law itself, not the message. To kill over a drawing is ludicrous.

 

[untermensche]

Were the people at the "conference" passing out flyers to Muslims directing them to shoot people?

Is burning a cross on somebodies property a flyer directing people to carry out acts of violence?

The world is far more complicated than your little world where things only happen because of flyers.

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

Should we close Planned Parenthood clinics because of Eric Rudolph?

These women want to have abortions in private and not have the location disclosed.

It is not a choice to directly incite if antiabortion fanatics seek out locations.

But this contest was publicized.

A deliberate and direct incitement.

 

[Trausti]

Is burning a cross on somebodies property a flyer directing people to carry out acts of violence?

The world is far more complicated than your little world where things only happen because of flyers.

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

Should we close Planned Parenthood clinics because of Eric Rudolph?

These women want to have abortions in private and not have the location disclosed.

It is not a choice to directly incite if antiabortion fanatics seek out locations.

But this contest was publicized.

A deliberate and direct incitement.

Have you considered that the purpose was to protest the encroachment of theocracy on Western values? Are you against protests?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/15/us-islam-blasphemy-idUSBRE89E18U20121015

 

[Tom Sawyer]

But this contest was publicized.

A deliberate and direct incitement.

Of course it was publicized. They were trying to make a public point.

Now, if you make another post, I'm going to strangle a cat. Don't make yourself a cat murderer by posting.

 

[Warpoet]

A black family moving into an all white neighborhood is a direct provocation to some white racists who may be living in that neighborhood. If the family moving in incites them to violence against that family, we should criticize that family, right Ford and untermensche?

That's a poor analogy. The black family is just trying to live their lives, whereas Geller and her ilk go out of their way to smear, insult and demean Muslims all the time. I don't agree with untermensche that they should face legal consequences, but yes, they should be criticized whether someone tries to kill them or not. They're fucking lunatics who poison the discourse on real issues with bigotry.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

A black family moving into an all white neighborhood is a direct provocation to some white racists who may be living in that neighborhood. If the family moving in incites them to violence against that family, we should criticize that family, right Ford and untermensche?

That's a poor analogy. The black family is just trying to live their lives, whereas Geller and her ilk go out of their way to smear, insult and demean Muslims all the time. I don't agree with untermensche that they should face legal consequences, but yes, they should be criticized whether someone tries to kill them or not. They're fucking lunatics.

And you have just demonstrated the proper way to criticize them - by challenging their ideas and insulting them for having such stupid ideas. Trying to get them to stop expressing their ideas through threats or acts of violence would make you a far worse lunatic than them and make their lunacy in a whole other league than yours.

 

[dismal]

That's a poor analogy. The black family is just trying to live their lives, whereas Geller and her ilk go out of their way to smear, insult and demean Muslims all the time. I don't agree with untermensche that they should face legal consequences, but yes, they should be criticized whether someone tries to kill them or not. They're fucking lunatics.

And you have just demonstrated the proper way to criticize them

I dunno. He seems so full of hate for Geller and "her ilk". I think he should be silenced.

 

[Axulus]

And you have just demonstrated the proper way to criticize them

I dunno. He seems so full of hate for Geller and "her ilk". I think he should be silenced.

Only if Geller and "her ilk" go on a murderous rampage. Then his speech becomes the same as burning crosses on property or going up to a Hells Angel member and insulting their family.

 

[dismal]

I dunno. He seems so full of hate for Geller and "her ilk". I think he should be silenced.

Only if Geller and "her ilk" go on a murderous rampage. Then his speech becomes the same as burning crosses on property or going up to a Hells Angel member and insulting their family.

It's Unter that wants to give killers the veto power of free speech.

Warpoet seems more concerned with the hate a speaker feels. But he drips hate for Geller in his speech so he must be silenced.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

But this contest was publicized.

A deliberate and direct incitement.

Of course it was publicized. They were trying to make a public point.

Now, if you make another post, I'm going to strangle a cat. Don't make yourself a cat murderer by posting.

Don't be stupid. He is an atheist... therefore already a cat killer.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Is burning a cross on somebodies property a flyer directing people to carry out acts of violence?

Burning a cross on someone's yard would be an act of violence in of itself. Drawings are not.

The world is far more complicated than your little world where things only happen because of flyers.

My little world? What, I live in a snow globe now? I asked a reasonable question because when one indicates there is an incitement of violence, you are typically not goading it on, but involved with it yourself. Gangs incited a riot in Baltimore.

Should we close Planned Parenthood clinics because of Eric Rudolph?

These women want to have abortions in private and not have the location disclosed.

It is not a choice to directly incite if antiabortion fanatics seek out locations.

But this contest was publicized.

A deliberate and direct incitement.

You didn't answer the question. The act of performing an abortion led a radical to blow up a clinic. How is that any different?

 

[Bomb#20]

Damn, what a strawman. Can you really not recognize a protest against fanatics killing newspaper writers and film makers in the name a Allah for daring to present anything that would "offend" religious fanatics - even though there is plenty that needs to be talked about that "offends" their delicate sensibilities.

Have you considered that the purpose was to protest the encroachment of theocracy on Western values? Are you against protests?

A protest? Oh, come on! For it to be a protest, Geller et al would have to have a legitimate grievance to protest about. She has no legitimate grievance -- she's a rich conservative white American, for crying out loud! It's only a protest if you're the Oppressed. When you're an Oppressor, which is what Geller is, it's incitement and any resulting violence is your fault. All those reductio ad absurdums people in this thread keep offering miss the point -- they keep trying to apply untermensche's arguments to speech against Oppressors, to which such arguments simply don't have any relation. You don't have to avoid inciting Christians because Christians aren't Oppressed. You don't have to avoid inciting American jingoists because American jingoists aren't Oppressed. You don't have to avoid inciting skinheads, anti-family-planners or fascists because skinheads, anti-family-planners and fascists aren't Oppressed. If you protest against any of those people and violence results, that's on them, because they're Oppressors.

 

[Nexus]

She has no legitimate grievance -- she's a rich conservative white American, for crying out loud!

Doesn't she get some credit for being a woman in a patriarchal society?