Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

You all know the story. A cheaply made internet video insulting Muhammad has caused thousands across several nations to revolt in protest of the United States. What are your thoughts on the matter

Freedom of speech FTW. Pissed off fanatics and Washington apologists GTFO.

Originally posted by Lestov16
You all know the story. A cheaply made internet video insulting Muhammad has caused thousands across several nations to revolt in protest of the United States. What are your thoughts on the matter

The protests serve as a great distraction from the corrupt governments of those countries. The common people in the demonstration should be out there demanding that the US government leave their countries. There are many good reasons for hating the US government but this isn't one of them. Religious zealotry blinds so many of the demonstrators, however, and fuels emotional anger that is actually caused by ignorance and a long history of US imperialism in the region, and their own misleaders sucking up to Uncle Sam, of course.

The right-wingnuts in the US who backed and produced "Innocence of Muslims" hoped it would bring Obama to his knees on a foreign policy issue but, not surprisingly, it has badly hurt Romney's image because of the idiotic statements he made after the US Ambassador was killed, and the idiotic damage control statements he and his staff continue to make about this issue.

I predict this thread will quickly polarize between Obamaites and Romneyites who want to discuss smaller related points backed up with anecdotal proof or no proof at all.

these aren't spontaneous protests against American interests.

for instance, there have been demonstrations in Iran against the Swiss embassy. a nation like Iran does not allow demonstrations not specifically approved by the state, showing a bit of the collusion between state interests, geopolitics and why people are protesting.

Originally posted by Little Caesar
I predict this thread will quickly polarize between Obamaites and Romneyites who want to discuss smaller related points backed up with anecdotal proof or no proof at all. I don't think we... do we have any Romneyites here?

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
I don't think we... do we have any Romneyites here?

I liked his Facebook page. Does that count?

The attack on the embassy which killed Stevens was obviously planned concidering that the movie was released months ago and that the attacks were in multiple areas at the same time aimed to be on 9/11. They aren't just attacking US embassies either.

The crowds in Egypt are rioting for an Al Qaida member, Omar Abdel Rahman aka "The Blind Sheikh" to be freed.

People in Libya were acting in retaliation due to a drone strike in june which killed another Al Qaida operative from Libya, Mohammed Hassan Qaed.

This shit isnt just about some stupid movie.



How about Paulites? Another prediction to add to the list.

CBJYSWHfq4E

It was planned. Trust the men who were on site - not some idiot Ambassador to the UN.

The Libyan attack was planned in the sense that a bunch of militia men heard about a video, realized it was the anniversary of 9/11, and said "hey, let's go shoot the embassy up".

That's the likely extent of the plan.

And it's not as if Ron Paul was saying anything in that video that hadn't been said many times before (and I mean before he made that statement a year ago). It's fairly obvious that with Gaddafi gone the door opens up to all kinds of militants--that's the thing, Al Qaeda is just one fish in a bucket in Libya.

The real concern right now is Mali.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
The Libyan attack was planned in the sense that a bunch of militia men heard about a video, realized it was the anniversary of 9/11, and said "hey, let's go shoot the embassy up".



That sounds stupid as ****. Sorry.

Originally posted by Omega Vision

And it's not as if Ron Paul was saying anything in that video that hadn't been said many times before (and I mean before he made that statement a year ago). It's fairly obvious that with Gaddafi gone the door opens up to all kinds of militants--that's the thing, Al Qaeda is just one fish in a bucket in Libya.

The real concern right now is Mali.

So obvious that our own government still supplied aid to the rebels.

But I guess we can leave simple news to the simple folk

Originally posted by Omega Vision
The Libyan attack was planned in the sense that a bunch of militia men heard about a video, realized it was the anniversary of 9/11, and said "hey, let's go shoot the embassy up".

I wouldn't be surprised to find out there was more planning than that. I can't actually say I believe it has anything to do with the 9/11 attacks, and more to do with taking advantage of people's anger to create a cover for themselves.

Really more of an opportunistic thing; people are mad, point them at the embassy and attack in the confusion.

Originally posted by Mairuzu
That sounds stupid as ****. Sorry.

you are actually here pushing Condie Rice's story?

Originally posted by Mairuzu
That sounds stupid as ****. Sorry.

Why? How is that not a probable explanation when you have a bunch of uneducated, unemployed kids with guns and a hardline interpretation of Islam? Why does there have to be a master plan involved? Do we suspect a cabal or an Illumnati type group behind the scenes every time a group of thugs smash up a car to steal a GPS?


The government made a calculation that supporting the rebels would win them an ally, whereas doing nothing would leave bitter resentment for decades to come, not even touching on the bloodbath that would have ensued if Gadaffi's army hadn't been checked.

http://imageshack.us/a/img845/9598/hotj.png

I'd hit.

... with a backhand. Way to Muslim up the forum, Rob.

It's what I was born to do.

I don't see how an amateur film like that could have such an effect on people. I think the attack was planned in advance by radicals.

It didn't really. The vast majority of all the pissed off Muslim protesters probably haven't even seen the film. But like New Year's Eve or bachelor parties, it's a good time to get f*cked up.

Just fools using the video as an excuse to be fools. Maybe they're just unhappy because in the U.S. you can actually post dissenting videos even if they are idiotic. Considering that there was less fanfare when groups and U.S. troops in an unrelated even burned Qurans it's pretty clear this was stupidity masquerading as zealotry.

I hate Facebook, but some one needs to get these people on it and some 9gag so they'll waste their free time in inanity rather than shooting things up. Nothing sews apathy and laziness like the interwebs. "Oh, the horror; let's blog about it."

Originally posted by Ascendancy
Just fools using the video as an excuse to be fools. Maybe they're just unhappy because in the U.S. you can actually post dissenting videos even if they are idiotic. Considering that there was less fanfare when groups and U.S. troops in an unrelated even burned Qurans it's pretty clear this was stupidity masquerading as zealotry.

I hate Facebook, but some one needs to get these people on it and some 9gag so they'll waste their free time in inanity rather than shooting things up. Nothing sews apathy and laziness like the interwebs. "Oh, the horror; let's blog about it."
Social networking and militancy aren't mutually exclusive.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-19680785

Yeah, the average Libyan really has no reason to hate the United States at this present time. We lent aid to the rebels (what little we could, considering we didn't want to fully commit) and Chris Stevens took to the streets to protest Qaddafi with them.

And in all honesty, the average Muslim is not responding to this video at all. It's extremists and others already discontented about their situations being whipped into a frenzy.

From what I've read, the awful video wasn't even translated into Arabic and other Middle Eastern languages until a day or so before the 9/11 anniversary.

Originally posted by Mairuzu
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-19680785 Will be completely ignored by the media.

An Egyptian Christian drug runner, thief, and con artist and his sister-raping militia buddies tried to start World War III by provoking a Muslim attack on 9/11 while at the same time building domestic animosity against Jews among the right and the retarded portion of the left.
Good summary?

Does he have to be conspiring to start WWIII. Can he not just have the simple freedom of speech to make a video?

Originally posted by Lestov16
Does he have to be conspiring to start WWIII. Can he not just have the simple freedom of speech to make a video?
It's not "simple freedom of speech", there's a clear intent to stir animosity.

I think a nuanced approach is called for in situations such as this, since you don't want to open the door to dangerous, irresponsible hate speech.

That said, I think the onus is on Muslims around the world to develop restraint and learn to live with the fact that not everyone holds their Prophet in the same esteem.

Freedom of Speech doesn't protect clear incitements to violence.

"Clear incitement" is relative, I imagine.

It's hard to distinguish intent from simply being an oblivious *******, like Astner in a way.

It's certainly possible that the guy who made the video is simply a sociopathic ass - I think the notion that he's some sort of mega-mastermind who carefully crafted a video with the intention of setting off a massive war between Muslim extremists and white people is giving the guy a bit too much credit.

i don't see an inflammatory video about a religious leader as 'a clear incitement of violence.'

i haven't seen the movie, so if there's more to it than simply being offensive and insulting to muslims and their religion, i could be misinterpreting this situation. like if he's actually calling for violence of some sort.

but if there's not, then i can't see the idea that we should try to stop shit like this as anything more than cowering to threats of violence. unpopular speech is the most important speech to protect.

I just finished watching that 13 minute movie. If there's something "inflammatory" about it, I'm not seeing it. It's poorly made and poorly acted. But it was satire. Pure and simple satire. I laughed a few times at some of the absurdity that I'm positive was intentionally included.

I thought very lowly before of all the people who reacted to this trite with violence and hate--no amount of "incense" in a film deserves such reaction:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_pwR6f0IGecc/TJUBX1SydOI/AAAAAAAAAAc/COkiDOrmkyg/s1600/behead_those_who_insult_islam_london.jpg



But after watching it, and looking again at the protests/riots/killings that have been committed by people whom I very much doubt have even watched it, I can't help but agree with the overt message the film makes: they're savages.

That said, I think the onus is on Muslims around the world to develop restraint and learn to live with the fact that not everyone holds their Prophet in the same esteem.

Indeed. Fact of the matter is that whether it's America the UK, or any other western country, this is our way, our culture, our values. After all, in their countries they burn our flags, and exhort their compatriots to 'kill the Infidels.' Do we march and protest in their countries when they do so? No. They'd put us to death if we tried...

Freedom of speech aside, if one migrates to a country with different cultures and a different religion, then one should, as a guest here, or even as an immigrant, at least try to 'fit in' and accept that we are different in many ways; and that just because they may worship some deity, it doesn't mean that they have the right to inflict their 'gods,' or values onto us, by force or violence.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Freedom of Speech doesn't protect clear incitements to violence.

In legal terms I think "incitement to violence" only counts things like telling people to do something.

Originally posted by Laurie
Do we march and protest in their countries when they do so? No. They'd put us to death if we tried...

Lybians protest in Lybia.
Americans protest in America.

It's pretty consistent actually. There are also Americans who say Islam is a religion of inherent evil that needs to be annihilated.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Lybians protest in Lybia.
Americans protest in America.

It's pretty consistent actually. There are also Americans who say Islam is a religion of inherent evil that needs to be annihilated.

This is the land of the free, and we have free speech. The difference being, we don't fly planes into their countries buildings... We don't bury women up to their waiss, or necks, and stone them. We don't allow ours sons and and fathers to hunt down and murder errant daughters either.

And, I know that not all Muslims are radicals...

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Freedom of Speech doesn't protect clear incitements to violence.

lol, and where would one find a clear incitement to violence?

Originally posted by Laurie
This is the land of the free, and we have free speech. The difference being, we don't fly planes into their countries buildings... We don't bury women up to their waiss, or necks, and stone them. We don't allow ours sons and and fathers to hunt down and murder errant daughters either.

And, I know that not all Muslims are radicals...

I'm having a lot of trouble figuring out what your point in this thread is, aside from "dem towelheads bad!"

Like, you say that we wouldn't be allowed to protest in their nations, then say how people should adopt the values of the nation they live in. The muslims who are protesting are in fact protesting according to their own nation's values... and by your own logic, it is wrong for us to try and enforce free speech on them...

so I'm not sure if you were just trolling Muslims or if you were aware of the internal inconsistencies...?

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
But after watching it, and looking again at the protests/riots/killings that have been committed by people whom I very much doubt have even watched it, I can't help but agree with the overt message the film makes: they're savages.

That's the main problem, most of these rioters probably haven't seen the film, they're just retards listening to their leaders who use the film's supposed message to send them off burning and breaking.

most of the protesters cannot access the internet...

Originally posted by Oliver North
most of the protesters cannot access the internet...

I'm not blaming them for lacking access to the internet, I'm blaming them for listening to others and causing violence.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Lybians protest in Lybia.
Americans protest in America.

It's pretty consistent actually. There are also Americans who say Islam is a religion of inherent evil that needs to be annihilated.

I think her point was more like: "Middle Eastern Muslim immigrants protested in Australia."

I do get what you're saying...because Australian born Muslims also protested. And the vast majority of Muslims who were foreign nationals did not protest. It was only a select few. Australia was arbitrarily chosen, btw: no significance to my point.

Originally posted by Robtard
I'm not blaming them for lacking access to the internet, I'm blaming them for listening to others and causing violence.

thats sort of exactly what I meant. It can't just be the movie, they have no way of ever seeing it

What bugs me is Hillary Clinton blaming the movie. Calling it "disgusting and reprehensible". I doubt she's seen it either, just giving a knee-jerk apologetic reaction to appease Muslims (which doesn't work). Many of the rioters may feel it's not just the movie, but the POTUS' cabinet doesn't. I think that's more worrisome.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
What bugs me is Hillary Clinton blaming the movie. Calling it "disgusting and reprehensible". I doubt she's seen it either, just giving a knee-jerk apologetic reaction to appease Muslims (which doesn't work). Many of the rioters may feel it's not just the movie, but the POTUS' cabinet doesn't. I think that's more worrisome.

To be fair, while retarded and laughable at being so bad at times, the film was clearly made for one reason, to upset Muslims.

But in no way does being trolled excuse someone from breaking, burning and/or killing.

I do like how people are talking about prosecuting the filmmaker for "inciting violence" but no one talks about prosecuting the people holding up signs with the words "BEHEAD ALL THOSE WHO INSULT ISLAM". Cuz that's not inciting violence at all. Everyone oughta know that upsetting violent people is a crime, but criminal violence is just upsetting.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
I do like how people are talking about prosecuting the filmmaker for "inciting violence" but no one talks about prosecuting the people holding up signs with the words "BEHEAD ALL THOSE WHO INSULT ISLAM". Cuz that's not inciting violence at all. Everyone oughta know that upsetting violent people is a crime, but criminal violence is just upsetting.

it sort of demonstrates why this type of censorship is ridiculous on its face. it is a crime based on the actions of others, and is by definition applied unequally.

if a movie can incite someone to violence, the fault isn't in the movie.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
I just finished watching that 13 minute movie. If there's something "inflammatory" about it, I'm not seeing it. It's poorly made and poorly acted. But it was satire. Pure and simple satire. I laughed a few times at some of the absurdity that I'm positive was intentionally included.

I thought very lowly before of all the people who reacted to this trite with violence and hate--no amount of "incense" in a film deserves such reaction:

But after watching it, and looking again at the protests/riots/killings that have been committed by people whom I very much doubt have even watched it, I can't help but agree with the overt message the film makes: they're savages.

The central issue that many Muslims have with the video is that it depicts Muhammad, their prophet. It is considered to be blasphemous to Islam to portray Muhammad in any form. Most Muslims will turn the blind eye and bear it quietly if he IS depicted.

The video takes it a step further by portraying him as a philanderer and homosexual. It's inflammatory. We don't have anything to really compare it to because we don't crap ourselves with rage when people portray images of Jesus Christ or even God. It's not part of the religion upon which America based its roots and morals, so we don't care nearly as much if Jesus is depicted negatively or for satire.

(Though, then again, there are some Christian extremists who may disagree with me and are every bit as hardcore about how Jesus is portrayed as the Muslims are about Muhammad's image. We just don't show those in the media because we're not at war with them, are we?)

And again, it's the extremists that are responding to this video with that whole 'BEHEAD THOSE WHO INSULT US!' mentality.

And furthermore, the video is only the tip of the iceberg as far as what is causing the riots.


Originally posted by Oliver North
most of the protesters cannot access the internet...

It only takes one guy with a cell phone going 'HEY LOOK AT THIS STUPID VIDEO, THEY INSULTED MUHAMMAD!' and then word of mouth to spread the news.

Some parties made certain that it was readily available and translated into Arabic around 9/11, of course.

My big issue with how some Muslim leaders have responded ("you have freedom of speech, but the Prophet is sacred to us, so don't insult him" is that they seem to see religious beliefs and freedom of expression as separate and unequal, with religious belief trumping freedom of expression when push comes to shove.

In this case there's little sense in defending the video on grounds of freedom of expression because it's not high art and appears to be what you might call trolling, but on principle I can't stomach their apparent philosophy that their beliefs are somehow more sacred than the beliefs of other cultures and societies.

Take the Pakistani rail minister who admitted that blasphemy isn't a crime in most of the Western World but warned that things would get "dangerous" if Westerners didn't toe the line.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I think her point was more like: "Middle Eastern Muslim immigrants protested in Australia."



He knew exactly what I was saying, he merely needed to pontificate with someone he thought was a newbie...

The fact of the matter is that these radicals have made it perfectly clear that their intent is to enforce their religion, on a global scale. And the radicals are prepared to use force and fear to bring this about. ON knows this too. I guess, for whatever reason known only to him, I'm 'it' today.

He'll find a new target tomorrow, no doubt.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
My big issue with how some Muslim leaders have responded ("you have freedom of speech, but the Prophet is sacred to us, so don't insult him" is that they seem to see religious beliefs and freedom of expression as separate and unequal, with religious belief trumping freedom of expression when push comes to shove.

In this case there's little sense in defending the video on grounds of freedom of expression because it's not high art and appears to be what you might call trolling, but on principle I can't stomach their apparent philosophy that their beliefs are somehow more sacred than the beliefs of other cultures and societies.

Take the Pakistani rail minister who admitted that blasphemy isn't a crime in most of the Western World but warned that things would get "dangerous" if Westerners didn't toe the line. i agree. i notice this not only with the leaders but with any muslims i happen to speak to about this issue. i don't know many muslims so this is an admittedly small sample i'm speaking of, but this has invariably been the type of response i've gotten.

i think this might be an area where there's just this source of inherent tension between the two cultures, and perhaps one where only one of the two conflicting ideal systems can ultimately win out.

Originally posted by Laurie
ON knows this too.

whatever I know, this doesn't address your contribution to the thread being muddled and self-contradictory. I suppose you could add an undue sense of victimization to that as well.

Originally posted by Laurie
He knew exactly what I was saying, he merely needed to pontificate with someone he thought was a newbie...
How dare you rebel like this. Not part of the plan.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Take the Pakistani rail minister who admitted that blasphemy isn't a crime in most of the Western World but warned that things would get "dangerous" if Westerners didn't toe the line.

Another problem between these cultures is that most of those Middle Eastern countries where this is an issue are used to the media (ALL media) being approved by the government first.

Just as we don't get what the big deal is with images of Muhammad, they don't seem to realize that anyone can make anything at all and call it media, especially in the social media age.

So while it isn't a crime to us, they think it should be or they hold the government responsible for something some idiot made.

their leaders have been telling them in no uncertain terms that this is either sanctioned by the US government or a CIA creation, FYI.

Originally posted by Little Caesar
How dare you rebel like this. Not part of the plan.

I am utterly cast down by your condemnation. Don't you know that I am the second cousin, to the third cousin, twice removed from Brutus, and that the Ides of October shall soon be upon us? I hold great sway with Brutus, and indeed the trubune also...

I shall have that bail of yours revoked, and you shall be fed to the Lions.


*twinkles*

The closest analogy I could think of here is if you guys saw a beehive and then one of your friends decided to stir it just to troll people and someone got killed because of it. Of course you blame the bees for stinging the guy to death, but the ******* who stirred the bees deserved his teeth kicked in, too.

/shrug

i'm not sure you're helping their case by comparing them to bees.

Not trying to "help" anyone's case. Clearly neither side is blameless. And "freedoms" should only be protected if people don't abuse it. I just think some people sometimes tend to take the extreme side on the freedom of speech debate.

And people have behaved like angry mindless mobs (aka bees) in the past. It's not like there aren't any riots in the first world either. It just takes the right amount of discontent (or anger or abundance of alcohol) and a trigger.

Originally posted by Oliver North
their leaders have been telling them in no uncertain terms that this is either sanctioned by the US government or a CIA creation, FYI.

Which, as I mentioned, is an excuse. Their governments already have huge problems with us, and in general the people don't. So the governments try to find things to get their population riled up. This is one of them.

Originally posted by REXXXX
Which, as I mentioned, is an excuse. Their governments already have huge problems with us, and in general the people don't. So the governments try to find things to get their population riled up. This is one of them.

yes, but that is my point

so while you continue to post things suggesting that Muslims are just too sensitive to offense or that they are too thick to understand how our government works, it is important to point out that that is not why they are protesting at all.

Muslims are not "over-sensitive" to offending their prophet or religion, nor do they lack the ability to understand free speech. It is that they are being lied to by the people they trust and the only media they have access to.

I'd like to say that I find blasphemy to be disgusting, ugly, or distasteful at times. Depends on what it is and the context.

However, I am known to be quite the blasphemer...

I hearty **** you to those that think it's perfectly okay to horribly blaspheme and troll another people's culture and beliefs. Sure, make academic arguments against those beliefs and the culture, but don't be an *******.


However, I enjoy South Park's humor quite a bit so I am just a hypocrite so **** me.



Originally posted by Laurie
He knew exactly what I was saying, he merely needed to pontificate with someone he thought was a newbie...

The fact of the matter is that these radicals have made it perfectly clear that their intent is to enforce their religion, on a global scale. And the radicals are prepared to use force and fear to bring this about. ON knows this too. I guess, for whatever reason known only to him, I'm 'it' today.

He'll find a new target tomorrow, no doubt.

I agree, he does that. I'm pretty sure he knew exactly what your point was: he's a very smart person.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Not trying to "help" anyone's case. Clearly neither side is blameless. And "freedoms" should only be protected if people don't abuse it. I just think some people sometimes tend to take the extreme side on the freedom of speech debate.

And people have behaved like angry mindless mobs (aka bees) in the past. It's not like there aren't any riots in the first world either. It just takes the right amount of discontent (or anger or abundance of alcohol) and a trigger. the way i interpreted your analogy was that making this kind of movie is no different then stirring a bee's nest; you can expect to get this kind of obscene reaction just like you'd expect the bees to attack you, so it's sorta his fault that they did.

in the case of a bees nest you would blame the human who stirred the nest. but in this case we're dealing with other human beings and so that kind of reasoning is no longer appropriate.

the guy who made the movie is responsible for being a dick and making a shitty movie. but he's not responsible for other people causing mayhem over it, as far as i'm concerned.

i don't think it's at all extreme to think that free speech extends to being insulting or inflammatory.

Originally posted by Oliver North

Muslims are not "over-sensitive" to offending their prophet or religion, nor do they lack the ability to understand free speech. It is that they are being lied to by the people they trust and the only media they have access to.

Stills shows a lack of restrain and civility, imo. If someone tells me something that riles me to the point where I want to break, burn and/or kill (esp the later), I'd make sure it's true first.

Originally posted by Robtard
Stills shows a lack of restrain, imo. If someone tells me something that riles me to the point where I want to break, burn and/or kill (esp the later), I'd make sure it's true first.


Yeah, but...what could possibly do that?


"I just raped your wife and kids and mutilated them. They are barely alive. Do something about it."


IMO, that's almost the only thing that could rile you up to the point of killing, burning, and breaking.

Oh, and...campers. Those seem to make you rage.

Originally posted by Robtard
Stills shows a lack of restrain and civility, imo. If someone tells me something that riles me to the point where I want to break, burn and/or kill (esp the later), I'd make sure it's true first.

Oh, I agree, I'm not trying to forgive the violence or rampant idiocy that we see out of the protesters.

It just sort of gets on my nerves when people make blanket statements about a group of people with no real nuance. I'm not saying the protesters are acting rationally, in fact I don't think they are (though many of the protests have become anti-drone related, especially in Pakistan). I just think it is equally wrong to say they are over-sensitive individuals who can't comprehend free speech. That mindset seems nearly derogatory to me, as if, "omg, we need to protect these people from our freedoms, because they can't handle it".

Originally posted by dadudemon
Yeah, but...what could possibly do that?

"I just raped your wife and kids and mutilated them. They are barely alive. Do something about it."

IMO, that's almost the only thing that could rile you up to the point of killing, burning, and breaking.

Oh, and...campers. Those seem to make you rage. If someone told me that, my first thought would be "I'm being trolled by an idiot".

I also have an extremely hard time believing Muslims view insulting Mohammad as being equal to raping and mutilating their wives and children. I'm sure you could find the exceptions here and there.

Oh, you.

Originally posted by Robtard
If someone told me that, my first thought would be "I'm being trolled by an idiot".

I would do the same. If they showed pictures, I guess that would work.

Originally posted by Robtard
I also have an extremely hard time believing Muslims view insulting Mohammad as being equal to raping and mutilating their wives and children. I'm sure you could find the exceptions here and there.

Yes...that was my point, good sir!

Originally posted by Robtard
Oh, you.

no, oh ess you.

This was Pat Condell's view:

GCXHPKhRCVg

Originally posted by red g jacks
the way i interpreted your analogy was that making this kind of movie is no different then stirring a bee's nest; you can expect to get this kind of obscene reaction just like you'd expect the bees to attack you, so it's sorta his fault that they did.

in the case of a bees nest you would blame the human who stirred the nest. but in this case we're dealing with other human beings and so that kind of reasoning is no longer appropriate.

the guy who made the movie is responsible for being a dick and making a shitty movie. but he's not responsible for other people causing mayhem over it, as far as i'm concerned.

i don't think it's at all extreme to think that free speech extends to being insulting or inflammatory.

Human beings who would have an exact and predictable reaction to that specific stimuli. How is this any different? You poke at something, they go nuts. It's specific, it's predictable. The end result is ppl getting hurt.

And then we look at intent. Hell, why even post trailers on youtube when you know he probably already knows that his movie is so bad and no1 will definitely watch it other than extreme racists? It's obvious the guy wanted some kind of reaction and a form of notoriety. Kinda like those ppl who went on shooting sprees just to get attention. He just did it the legal way under the blanket of "freedom of speech". That way, he can have ppl come in and protect his "rights".

What I also don't get is why youtube didn't censor the damned thing. Copyright infringement? REMOVE! Boobs? CENSOR! Inflammatory videos that may cause loss of human life? Eh, we'll go on a looong debate about it and just block it in certain regions...

You can sue ppl for libel/slander if they defame your character, but when ppl die because of something you "said", ppl flock to protect you and your rights to speech....

That's terrible logic.

it's different because it's unreasonable to hold bees responsible for anything. the rioters are human beings who are responsible for their own actions.

it doesn't honestly matter what his intent is. the fact that he can elicit such a response with a shitty youtube video is what's actually at the root of the problem.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Human beings who would have an exact and predictable reaction to that specific stimuli. How is this any different? You poke at something, they go nuts. It's specific, it's predictable. The end result is ppl getting hurt.

And then we look at intent. Hell, why even post trailers on youtube when you know he probably already knows that his movie is so bad and no1 will definitely watch it other than extreme racists? It's obvious the guy wanted some kind of reaction and a form of notoriety. Kinda like those ppl who went on shooting sprees just to get attention. He just did it the legal way under the blanket of "freedom of speech". That way, he can have ppl come in and protect his "rights".

What I also don't get is why youtube didn't censor the damned thing. Copyright infringement? REMOVE! Boobs? CENSOR! Inflammatory videos that may cause loss of human life? Eh, we'll go on a looong debate about it and just block it in certain regions...

You can sue ppl for libel/slander if they defame your character, but when ppl die because of something you "said", ppl flock to protect you and your rights to speech.... Freedom of speech can go f*ck itself, is what you're saying?

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Kinda like those ppl who went on shooting sprees just to get attention.

wait... wut?

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Freedom of speech can go f*ck itself, is what you're saying?

When freedoms get abused, then yes.

Originally posted by Tzeentch._
That's terrible logic.

Elaborate?

Originally posted by Nibedicus
When freedoms get abused, then yes. Then you can go f*ck yourself.

Whoa there, Lucien. You know a post like that is over the line.

Indeed. Watch the heat.

There are certain things that shouldn't be left uncensored, in any case. Freedom of speech is fantastic and all, but sometimes it causes problems. More often than not, though, it's awesome.

It's just the few that occasionally decide that it means they can spew offensive, awful nonsense that ruin it for everyone else.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Whoa there, Lucien. You know a post like that is over the line. I was just about to draw a comparison to the topic at hand, but... you know. Subtlety and all that.

Originally posted by REXXXX
Indeed. Watch the heat.

There are certain things that shouldn't be left uncensored, in any case. Freedom of speech is fantastic and all, but sometimes it causes problems. More often than not, though, it's awesome.

It's just the few that occasionally decide that it means they can spew offensive, awful nonsense that ruin it for everyone else. That's the price of freedom of speech. It's going to piss people off, and they're going to react. But it's not the speech that should be outlawed, it's the reaction. Cuz let's face it, it's the reactions that get noticed, get people talking about "freedoms have limits". If we didn't have to put up with any incendiary reactions, there would be no problem.

Regardless of your intention, please do not make posts like that in future, particularly with the swearing.

But it's censored.

That's not actually a get-out clause to use it as much as you like, especially when the context is liable to cause offence.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Human beings who would have an exact and predictable reaction to that specific stimuli. How is this any different? You poke at something, they go nuts. It's specific, it's predictable. The end result is ppl getting hurt.

And then we look at intent. Hell, why even post trailers on youtube when you know he probably already knows that his movie is so bad and no1 will definitely watch it other than extreme racists? It's obvious the guy wanted some kind of reaction and a form of notoriety. Kinda like those ppl who went on shooting sprees just to get attention. He just did it the legal way under the blanket of "freedom of speech". That way, he can have ppl come in and protect his "rights".

What I also don't get is why youtube didn't censor the damned thing. Copyright infringement? REMOVE! Boobs? CENSOR! Inflammatory videos that may cause loss of human life? Eh, we'll go on a looong debate about it and just block it in certain regions...

You can sue ppl for libel/slander if they defame your character, but when ppl die because of something you "said", ppl flock to protect you and your rights to speech....

Originally posted by REXXXX
It's just the few that occasionally decide that it means they can spew offensive, awful nonsense that ruin it for everyone else.

So, you both seem to be making the argument that freedom of speech is great until people are offended by the outcome, yes? That there is a line in the sand that should be drawn, at offending others, where free speech should not be allowed?

I have two questions about that then:

a) If you are saying speech should be limited, I actually find that offensive. I don't mean this as some tongue-in-cheek point either. I find it absolutely repugnant that you would denounce something that is a core belief of mine. Something like free speech is important to me as any religious principles are to believers. What you are saying would be equal to blasphemy in this regard. So, either you are promoting censoring your own positions on free speech, or you are saying that the fact I wont kill you for insulting my beliefs means my offense isn't as valid as others. Even if we use your logic, wouldn't my rational offense, rather than resorting to violence, indicate that my opinion should be taken more seriously that those who do hurt others?

b) (And I'm channeling the spirit of Christopher Hitchens here) Who would you possibly trust with the authority to censor speech. Lets say we both agree that some speech should be limited, what organization do you think has the wisdom to do it? History shows that almost all free speech "fights" have arisen due to blasphemy or challenging the absolute truth of a political system. The speech that does get censored is always that which challenges the established authorities of the time. You would invest the power to censor in Barak Obama or Mitt Romney? You believe the American state is trustworthy and level-headed enough to make non-partisan, non-corrupt, non-self-serving decisions on this matter?

I can anticipate your reaction to part a), but I'm really interested in your response to b).

: I also wanted to add a comment on this:

Originally posted by Nibedicus
The closest analogy I could think of here is if you guys saw a beehive and then one of your friends decided to stir it just to troll people and someone got killed because of it. Of course you blame the bees for stinging the guy to death, but the ******* who stirred the bees deserved his teeth kicked in, too.

/shrug

this would be a much more accurate portrayal:

A bunch of people who have irrational hatred of bees make a film about how dumb bees are in a language bees can't understand and put it on the internet where not only can other movies made by people with an irrational hatred of bees can be found, but far more inflammatory works are common.

A group of bees that hold immense religious or political power among the bees find this movie and selectively translate and cut scenes to make it as inflammatory as possible. Then, as the only source of information the bees have, these leaders say that all of the humans are watching and loving this inflammatory bee movie, that it was sanctioned by the highest level of the human government, and that the human intelligence agency (who happens to, in reality, use robots in the sky to indiscriminately kill hundreds of innocent bees and their children all throughout the bee-world) produced it specifically to insult bees.

The bee governments then promote unrest amongst the bees, attacking humans unrelated to the production of the film at the behest of their leaders. In some places, the bee government giving their drones a day off of work, calling it "respect-bees day", for the expressed reason of letting them protest the humans.

So, by your own analogy, the people who deserve to have their teeth kicked in are the bees at the top of the chain who manipulated their subordinates into mass anger, not the couple of individuals, of many, who put moronic things up on the web.

Originally posted by Oliver North
So, you both seem to be making the argument that freedom of speech is great until people are offended by the outcome, yes? That there is a line in the sand that should be drawn, at offending others, where free speech should not be allowed?

I have two questions about that then:

a) If you are saying speech should be limited, I actually find that offensive. I don't mean this as some tongue-in-cheek point either. I find it absolutely repugnant that you would denounce something that is a core belief of mine. Something like free speech is important to me as any religious principles are to believers. What you are saying would be equal to blasphemy in this regard. So, either you are promoting censoring your own positions on free speech, or you are saying that the fact I wont kill you for insulting my beliefs means my offense isn't as valid as others. Even if we use your logic, wouldn't my rational offense, rather than resorting to violence, indicate that my opinion should be taken more seriously that those who do hurt others?

b) (And I'm channeling the spirit of Christopher Hitchens here) Who would you possibly trust with the authority to censor speech. Lets say we both agree that some speech should be limited, what organization do you think has the wisdom to do it? History shows that almost all free speech "fights" have arisen due to blasphemy or challenging the absolute truth of a political system. The speech that does get censored is always that which challenges the established authorities of the time. You would invest the power to censor in Barak Obama or Mitt Romney? You believe the American state is trustworthy and level-headed enough to make non-partisan, non-corrupt, non-self-serving decisions on this matter?

I can anticipate your reaction to part a), but I'm really interested in your response to b).

Except that I made my point with the intention to debate a point, not to incite a negative reaction from you. Also, I did it in a place where such debate and difference of opinions is actually allowed and is acceptable. Proper place, proper intentions.

My point only point is that: Freedom of speech, as with any freedom, cannot be an absolute. Maybe in a perfect world with perfect people absolute freedoms may exist. But that's not the reality of our world right now.

Besides, there are ALREADY laws that limit "freedom of speech" in one form or another can be applied to this specific scenario. Censorship of profanity and nudity in media (isn't this, in itself, a limitation of "freedom of speech" in order to not offend people?) , Copyright infringement of intelectual, Libel/Slander. Aren't these already "censorships" in one form? Why allow these limitations to freedom that protects property and modesty but put nothing that protects human life? Is property/modesty more important than human beings?

Who do we trust with the AUTHORITY to censor speech? Well, how about we don't trust anyone with this authority and just hold everyone responsible for their actions? Your hate speech caused a riot and killed people in the process? Get your ass sued and if the judge and jury of your peers find that you knowingly and purposely caused those deaths, then pay the price. That's how I see it, anyway.

Bear in mind, I still strongly hold to the belief that the rioters themselves are far more to blame than the instigator. Does not make the instigator any less guilty.

Edit. Your analogy makes no sense. Also, I made my analogy as an extension to the idiom "stirring a hornet's nest" simply to make a point. You transplanting the word "bees" into every instance of "muslim" doesn't invalidate my point at all.

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/foreign-policy/249545-the-libya-fiasco-and-the-folly-of-intervention




More wise words from the doctor

I don't agree with that article. It's an international religion that creates the extremists, not the country they are from.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Except that I made my point with the intention to debate a point, not to incite a negative reaction from you. Also, I did it in a place where such debate and difference of opinions is actually allowed and is acceptable. Proper place, proper intentions.

so, just to be absolutely clear, you are allowed to say offensive things to me because you know I wont kill you, but it is your fault if you say offensive things to someone who would?

What if, after Lord Lucien told you to f yourself, you had responded by killing him? by your own logic, he would be at fault for "stirring a hornets nest".

Like, your logic falls apart so quickly. You say it is ok to offend my beliefs because I wont kill you is instantly made moot if I do try to kill you, something you have no control over.

This is inanity.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
My point only point is that: Freedom of speech, as with any freedom, cannot be an absolute. Maybe in a perfect world with perfect people absolute freedoms may exist. But that's not the reality of our world right now.

Besides, there are ALREADY laws that limit "freedom of speech" in one form or another can be applied to this specific scenario. Censorship of profanity and nudity in media (isn't this, in itself, a limitation of "freedom of speech" in order to not offend people?) , Copyright infringement of intelectual, Libel/Slander. Aren't these already "censorships" in one form? Why allow these limitations to freedom that protects property and modesty but put nothing that protects human life? Is property/modesty more important than human beings?

well, paragraph 1 is answered by paragraph 2.

dealing with the first part of paragraph 2, the existence of something doesn't make it just, and you are foolish to think I endorse other violations of free speech.

the examples of libel/slander or IP (and honestly, thanks for the low-hanging fruit) don't work, because in these instances one needs to prove that there is a target of the speech that is being harmed specifically because of the speech itself, not because of some perceived insult or offense.

For instance, I can say whatever I want about you as political speech or as satire. I can express whatever personal opinion about you that I want. What I can't do is, say, lie about a product you produce in a way that harms its ability to perform in the marketplace. The reason this is restricted is that the speech itself produces tangible harm simply by existing. It doesn't require some offense, or some interpretation, it has to be, itself, damaging. Similarly, I can't assassinate your character to your boss, with untruths, because the speech itself, not the insult you might feel from it or the offense you take to it, causes harm to you in a direct way. IP is essentially the same, but applies only to commercial interests.

A better argument for you would be to talk about criminal conspiracy, such as hiring a hit man or planning a robbery, where your point in the first paragraph becomes relevant.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Who do we trust with the AUTHORITY to censor speech? Well, how about we don't trust anyone with this authority and just hold everyone responsible for their actions? Your hate speech caused a riot and killed people in the process? Get your ass sued and if the judge and jury of your peers find that you knowingly and purposely caused those deaths, then pay the price. That's how I see it, anyway.

ok, so this is an explicit endorsement of the idea that it is ok to insult my beliefs because I wont kill you, but not ok to insult others who might be violent.

additionally, you have described a situation that can't help but become a tyranny of the majority. If juries were allowed to determine what was or was not censored, neither Andres Serrano or Robert Mapplethorpe would have been allowed to produce art.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Edit. Your analogy makes no sense.

you could have just said "I haven't been following what is happening in the world"

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Also, I made my analogy as an extension to the idiom "stirring a hornet's nest" simply to make a point.

yes, I understood that and addressed it with my final line. The people "stirring the hornets nest" are the religious and political leaders in the muslim world

Originally posted by Nibedicus
You transplanting the word "bees" into every instance of "muslim" doesn't invalidate my point at all.

no, but it does show that your limited grasp on what is actually happening in these protests lead you to make an overly simplistic analogy that places the blame on the wrong people, by its own logic.

wait, maybe that is invalidating...

Originally posted by Lestov16
I don't agree with that article. It's an international religion that creates the extremists, not the country they are from.

Yeah definitely, it has nothing to do with decades of interventionism in the middle east.

Originally posted by Mairuzu
Yeah definitely, it has nothing to do with decades of interventionism in the middle east.

Oh that...yeah so I see we have tons of South Americans causing all sorts of trouble around the world. Surely decades upon decades of intervention in South America have brought this WAVE of Latino Terrorism from Peru to China.

-_-

When have we recently drone bombed south america? haermm

When have we recently provided aid to militants (even the ones we are fighting on afghanistan) to overthrow their leaders in south america?

Control is already set in place in that location. Sorry, fail. That's what happens when guns are banned.

Well, the Ron Paul article you quoted talks about supplying militants in Afghanistan to fight the Russians, and that was at the same time as very similar things being done by the US in South America. So Lil has a point.

You also say 'decades' of intervention but then try to pull up Lil by saying it has to be 'recent'. Your arguments will be better considered if consistent.

Not really a good point at all concidering the massive gun bans in south america. What are they to do?


We aren't bombing south america with drones. Fail comparison, the two don't compare all that much.

Again, you said 'decades' of intervention. We've not been drone bombing the Middle East for decades. The US did plenty in South America that was much worse. Your babble about gun bans doesn't change the fact that there are enormous armed terrorist groups in South America. We can make the same argument for Africa. If you are going to throw long-term intervention in the Middle-East as being a cause, then Lil is very entitled to use other examples of long-term intervention as a counter to your point. You should fight that point logically, if you can, rather than just throwing such childish comments back.

Make your mind up what you are arguing about. Honestly, from your lack of consistency, mindless quoting of other people and equally mindless throwing around of words like 'fail', your arguing logic is terrible.

Wait, why is everyone arguing under the impression that there isn't massive political unrest throughout Latin and South America as a result of American intervention?

How are cartels, the target of the war on drugs, different from Al Qaeda, the target of the war on terror?

Lol, do I have to explain in detail the sort of "interventionism" that is occuring in these countries? Do you guys not already know? You could easily come up with the difference yourselves, this is foolish, its like im talking to children.

Make up my mind? Does arming a radical group with advanced weaponry only to have them turn on us most in sept. 2001 compare to south america? Its a very weak comparison. My argument is that we shouldnt intervene at all otherwise we end up losing lives, end up with unintended consequences and create more enemies.

This is stupid lol.


Originally posted by Oliver North

How are cartels, the target of the war on drugs, different from Al Qaeda, the target of the war on terror?

We seem to be arming both

Well, I believe the issue at stake is breeding a hostility to the US.

The cartels are not hostile to the US per se- their motive is simply money.

Originally posted by Mairuzu
Lol, do I have to explain in detail the sort of "interventionism" that is occuring in these countries? Do you guys not already know? You could easily come up with the difference yourselves, this is foolish, its like im talking to children.

Make up my mind? Does arming a radical group with advanced weaponry only to have them turn on us most in sept. 2001 compare to south america? Its a very weak comparison. My argument is that we shouldnt intervene at all otherwise we end up losing lives, end up with unintended consequences and create more enemies.

See, this sort of post from you just reveals an overwhelming ignorance (of, for example, the scale of intervention in South American and Africa with situations very similar indeed to Afghanistan but which have NOT led to terrorist campaigns against the US) and a blind unwillingness to try and engage with the point Lil is making. It just hammers your credibility.

That's all I have to say on your arguments. I am honestly just offering advice to you though, because your current approach is immensely unconvincing.

Originally posted by Oliver North
so, just to be absolutely clear, you are allowed to say offensive things to me because you know I wont kill you, but it is your fault if you say offensive things to someone who would?

If my intention was to have you kill me knowing full well that you would kill me if I said what I said (based on common sense, basic knowledge and empirical evidence), you'd still be liable for killing me but I'd share some of the blame for instigating it and ppl will no doubt shake their heads at my folly.

Would be nice if you read everything I said and stopped trying to Strawman me.

Originally posted by Oliver North
What if, after Lord Lucien told you to f yourself, you had responded by killing him? by your own logic, he would be at fault for "stirring a hornets nest".

Like, your logic falls apart so quickly. You say it is ok to offend my beliefs because I wont kill you is instantly made moot if I do try to kill you, something you have no control over.

This is inanity.

This is irrelevant and does not accurately portray what I was saying.

Originally posted by Oliver North
well, paragraph 1 is answered by paragraph 2.

dealing with the first part of paragraph 2, the existence of something doesn't make it just, and you are foolish to think I endorse other violations of free speech.

It proves that it is just in the eyes of your government or the people and that freedom of speech in itself is not absolute and not regulating some parts of speech but allowing others w/c are far more damaging simply shows a level of hypocrisy that exists in society.

Originally posted by Oliver North
the examples of libel/slander or IP (and honestly, thanks for the low-hanging fruit) don't work, because in these instances one needs to prove that there is a target of the speech that is being harmed specifically because of the speech itself, not because of some perceived insult or offense.

People died. I'd call that harm.

Originally posted by Oliver North
For instance, I can say whatever I want about you as political speech or as satire. I can express whatever personal opinion about you that I want. What I can't do is, say, lie about a product you produce in a way that harms its ability to perform in the marketplace. The reason this is restricted is that the speech itself produces tangible harm simply by existing. It doesn't require some offense, or some interpretation, it has to be, itself, damaging. Similarly, I can't assassinate your character to your boss, with untruths, because the speech itself, not the insult you might feel from it or the offense you take to it, causes harm to you in a direct way. IP is essentially the same, but applies only to commercial interests.

Empirical data, common knowledge and common sense tells us that there will repercussions of such hate speech and ppl will get hurt. PPL DIED. What is so hard to get here?

Originally posted by Oliver North
A better argument for you would be to talk about criminal conspiracy, such as hiring a hit man or planning a robbery, where your point in the first paragraph becomes relevant.

Not really.

Originally posted by Oliver North
ok, so this is an explicit endorsement of the idea that it is ok to insult my beliefs because I wont kill you, but not ok to insult others who might be violent.

Because it's stupid and irresponsible to instigate violence just because we want to exercise our right to be a troll. IF OTHER people are harmed by it, we shouldn't hide behind a banner of "freedom of speech" and just simply accept responsibility for it.

Originally posted by Oliver North
additionally, you have described a situation that can't help but become a tyranny of the majority. If juries were allowed to determine what was or was not censored, neither Andres Serrano or Robert Mapplethorpe would have been allowed to produce art.


It's my argument that we need to all be responsible for our actions. If something we did/said caused harm, then we must all be rendered responsible for it.

Originally posted by Oliver North
you could have just said "I haven't been following what is happening in the world"

There seems to be something wrong with your interpretive skills if this is what you got from what I said. Your analogy does not make sense because it has no relation to what exists in the real world (bees don't have governments). And only seeks to insert absurdity.

Originally posted by Oliver North
yes, I understood that and addressed it with my final line. The people "stirring the hornets nest" are the religious and political leaders in the muslim world

I agree somewhat. But these people need banners/flags for them to instigate people into action. Prejudiced hate speech/demonstrations gives them just that and the people responsible for this should be held partly liable.

Originally posted by Oliver North
no, but it does show that your limited grasp on what is actually happening in these protests lead you to make an overly simplistic analogy that places the blame on the wrong people, by its own logic.

wait, maybe that is invalidating...

Would be nice if you stuck to the point instead of going the cheap "I don't think you know what's really going on, thus it invalidates your point" ad hominem toxic debating path that you're slowly creeping towards right now. Stick to the point pls.

FYI, I know how extremist methodology works. Check my country of origin, and in the parts where I live (Mindanao), we deal with that stuff everyday. I don't go into detail on the specifics on what occurred in the ME because my point was simple and needed no overcomplication (w/c seems to be what you want to do).

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Again, you said 'decades' of intervention. We've not been drone bombing the Middle East for decades.

Lol no shit, we haven't had drones up in the air for that long but I'm pretty sure you're aware of that history, no?

Originally posted by Ushgarak

The US did plenty in South America that was much worse.


Probably just as bad, I still dont see your point.

Originally posted by Ushgarak

Your babble about gun bans doesn't change the fact that there are enormous armed terrorist groups in South America. We can make the same argument for Africa. If you are going to throw long-term intervention in the Middle-East as being a cause, then Lil is very entitled to use other examples of long-term intervention as a counter to your point. You should fight that point logically, if you can, rather than just throwing such childish comments back.

Make your mind up what you are arguing about. Honestly, from your lack of consistency, mindless quoting of other people and equally mindless throwing around of words like 'fail', your arguing 7logic is terrible.



Lol you must have not seen my original post in the beginning of this thread which explains quite a few of these protests. My argument is that we have a lot of resentment because of our decades of interventionism, whether it be throwing out elected officials, foreign aid to oppressors, drone strikes which dont always get the correct target, and of course military presense and sanctions. To think that they are just protesting for the hell of it because "THEY'RE CRAZY" is so ****ing stupid and lacks any critical thinking.



So fail

Originally posted by Ushgarak
See, this sort of post from you just reveals an overwhelming ignorance (of, for example, the scale of intervention in South American and Africa with situations very similar indeed to Afghanistan but which have NOT led to terrorist campaigns against the US) and a blind unwillingness to try and engage with the point Lil is making. It just hammers your credibility.

That's all I have to say on your arguments. I am honestly just offering advice to you though, because your current approach is immensely unconvincing.


Why do you think it hasnt lead to terrorist compaigns? I'd love to hear.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
If my intention was to have you kill me knowing full well that you would kill me if I said what I said (based on common sense, basic knowledge and empirical evidence), you'd still be liable for killing me but I'd share some of the blame for instigating it and ppl will no doubt shake their heads at my folly.

Would be nice if you read everything I said and stopped trying to Strawman me.

This is irrelevant and does not accurately portray what I was saying.



Because it's stupid and irresponsible to instigate violence just because we want to exercise our right to be a troll. IF OTHER people are harmed by it, we shouldn't hide behind a banner of "freedom of speech" and just simply accept responsibility for it.

The first three statements are invalidated by your later (fourth in the quoted) point responding the the exact same framing of your position.

also, you really don't get to just say whatever you believe is based on common knowledge, basic knowledge and empirical evidence without demonstrating any one of them.

For your position to be correct, you have to assume a) people can predict the future with 100% accuracy, b) we can know the content of other people's minds with 100% accuracy and c) that Muslims, as a people, are "oversensitive" based on "common knowledge, basic knowledge and empirical evidence".

Originally posted by Nibedicus
It proves that it is just in the eyes of your government or the people and that freedom of speech in itself is not absolute and not regulating some parts of speech but allowing others w/c are far more damaging simply shows a level of hypocrisy that exists in society.

a) just because a government or local majority of people believe something does not make it just, or something I have to endorse

b) I agreed there need to be limits and expressed what I think reasonable limits are...

Originally posted by Nibedicus
People died. I'd call that harm.

Empirical data, common knowledge and common sense tells us that there will repercussions of such hate speech and ppl will get hurt. PPL DIED. What is so hard to get here?

re: I don't understand libel/slander or IP laws

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Not really.

You think IP laws are a more egregious violation of free speech than conspiracy laws that prevent people from discussing crimes that don't and may not exist?

I'm not sure... I.. are you just trolling me?

Originally posted by Nibedicus
It's my argument that we need to all be responsible for our actions. If something we did/said caused harm, then we must all be rendered responsible for it.

yes, if there is direct harm from those words existing, you are correct. Not if the harm is based on someone's offense to what is said, which is subjective and not a result of the words existing, but a result of how someone feels about it.

this is actually not a complicated point...

Originally posted by Nibedicus
There seems to be something wrong with your interpretive skills if this is what you got from what I said. Your analogy does not make sense because it has no relation to what exists in the real world (bees don't have governments). And only seeks to insert absurdity.

lol, wut?

you know what the word "analogy" means right?

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Would be nice if you stuck to the point instead of going the cheap "I don't think you know what's really going on, thus it invalidates your point" ad hominem toxic debating path that you're slowly creeping towards right now. Stick to the point pls.

actually, not an ad hominem in this instance. A personal insult, maybe, but your understanding of the issue we are discussing is a valid point of criticism if it is clear you don't understand.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
FYI, I know how extremist methodology works.



Originally posted by Nibedicus
Check my country of origin, and in the parts where I live (Mindanao), we deal with that stuff everyday.

oh, how silly of me. what exceptional evidence.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
I don't go into detail on the specifics on what occurred in the ME because my point was simple and needed no overcomplication (w/c seems to be what you want to do).

well, yes, it is what I want to do because my point is your simplification is inappropriate, and I've given a number of reasons to support this. You have claimed that, as an expert on "extremist methodology" , you have the truth.

Obviously you don't have to agree with me, but I imagine there is little doubt in any reader's mind about which of us has a stronger position.

Originally posted by Oliver North
The first three statements are invalidated by your later (fourth in the quoted) point responding the the exact same framing of your position.

also, you really don't get to just say whatever you believe is based on common knowledge, basic knowledge and empirical evidence without demonstrating any one of them.

No, it's not. Maybe in your mind it is. But it really isn't. Being stupid doesn't mean you're not aware of what you're doing.

Originally posted by Oliver North
For your position to be correct, you have to assume a) people can predict the future with 100% accuracy, b) we can know the content of other people's minds with 100% accuracy and c) that Muslims, as a people, are "oversensitive" based on "common knowledge, basic knowledge and empirical evidence".

a) No, it just has to be known by enough people to be considered "common" (religious extremists will resort to violence given any reason, much more a very strong reason to, like in this case). b) Incorrect, intent can be identified without having to read a person's mind. c) As a people, those that take the religion very seriously, are very sensitive of their religion as they hold it in high reverence. So, yes, I can say that many of them tend to be highly sensitive on the subject. And my point has always been

Originally posted by Oliver North
a) just because a government or local majority of people believe something does not make it just, or something I have to endorse

The government or local majority would disagree with you.

Your definition of "just" seems to be subjective to what you want. So maybe in "OliverNorthland" we can all be exposed to your perfect definition of justice.



No one cares what you "endorse" tbh.

Originally posted by Oliver North
b) I agreed there need to be limits and expressed what I think reasonable limits are...

I reread what you posted. Where EXACTYL did you post "reasonable" limits save your comment regarding IP and copyright infringement?

Originally posted by Oliver North
re: I don't understand libel/slander or IP laws

No, it means that you don't understand what my point was.

Originally posted by Oliver North
You think IP laws are a more egregious violation of free speech than conspiracy laws that prevent people from discussing crimes that don't and may not exist?

I'm not sure... I.. are you just trolling me?

Where exactly did I say this?

Wait, are you responding to some OTHER imaginary poster no one else here can see?

Originally posted by Oliver North
yes, if there is direct harm from those words existing, you are correct. Not if the harm is based on someone's offense to what is said, which is subjective and not a result of the words existing, but a result of how someone feels about it.

this is actually not a complicated point...

Unless your intent was to directly reach the exact audience that would elicit such a response.

Originally posted by Oliver North
lol, wut?

you know what the word "analogy" means right?

Yes, I do. One more direct attack and I'm putting you on ignore, I have no time to deal with toxic debaters.

Originally posted by Oliver North
actually, not an ad hominem in this instance. A personal insult, maybe, but your understanding of the issue we are discussing is a valid point of criticism if it is clear you don't understand.

It is the definition of ad hominem.

You (admittedly) resorting to a personal attack to try and invalidate my point is the VERY DEFINITION of ad hominem. Here's the wiki entry in case you're not all that convinced.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

You are being presumptuous or desperate to believe that claim to believe what others know simply based on explicitly simplified recounting of events to make a simple point.

You resorting to personal attacks seems to point out that it could be the latter rather than former.

Originally posted by Oliver North


oh, how silly of me. what exceptional evidence.

Didn't point that out as evidence sport. Just that you don't know who I am and what I know and best to keep things to point rather than (desperately) seeking validation by making personal attacks.

Originally posted by Oliver North
well, yes, it is what I want to do because my point is your simplification is inappropriate, and I've given a number of reasons to support this. You have claimed that, as an expert on "extremist methodology" , you have the truth.

I have claimed no expert knowledge of anything.

Why do you like twisting what everyone says?

Originally posted by Oliver North
Obviously you don't have to agree with me, but I imagine there is little doubt in any reader's mind about which of us has a stronger position.

It is often the person who first claims victory in a debate where no1 is judging that has the weaker position.

You know, let's simplify this debate even further. Let's say you own a cinema. Let's say you invite the most violent black gangbangers in your area to a private screening and allowed them to bring lighters and cigarettes to the screening. Let's say you show them the most inflammatory racist mocking movie that can be made.

Whose fault is it that your cinema burned down?

Originally posted by Nibedicus
You know, let's simplify this debate even further. Let's say you own a cinema. Let's say you invite the most violent black gangbangers in your area to a private screening and allowed them to bring lighters and cigarettes to the screening. Let's say you show them the most inflammatory racist mocking movie that can be made.

Whose fault is it that your cinema burned down?

are you actually confusing causality with criminal responsibility?

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Yes, I do. One more direct attack and I'm putting you on ignore, I have no time to deal with toxic debaters.

oh muffin, how could I ever dream of missing out on your incisive observations about the world

please don't hate me

Originally posted by Oliver North
are you actually confusing causality with criminal responsibility?

Humor me. Stop dancing around it and answer my question.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Humor me. Stop dancing around it and answer my question.

the people who burnt down the cinema are guilty of arson

EDIT: hey, I've got one for you:

You walk up to a guy with a gun and say "shoot me". He does. Who is guilty?

Originally posted by Oliver North
the people who burnt down the cinema are guilty of arson

And you think any court in the country would find them guilty given the circumstances (and a decent lawyer)?

Originally posted by Nibedicus
And you think any court in the country would find them guilty given the circumstances (and a decent lawyer)?

yes, I know for a fact any court in my country would find them guilty, because they are the only ones who have committed a crime.

are you 13?

Originally posted by Oliver North
yes, I know for a fact any court in my country would find them guilty, because they are the only ones who have committed a crime.

are you 13?

I see, I guess you must live in some imaginary country. OliverNorthland, perhaps?

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/temporary+insanity



Originally posted by Oliver North
are you 13?

Age insults. How quaint.

/ignore

Edit. Quoted the wrong web entry. Corrected.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
I see, I guess you must live in some imaginary country. OliverNorthland, perhaps?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_of_passion



that is a criminal defense for the arsonists, it doesn't implicate the owner of the cinema in any way...

not to beat a dead horse, but maybe you should read about the things you insist on pretending you know about?

Originally posted by Nibedicus
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/temporary+insanity

Edit. Quoted the wrong web entry. Corrected.

same as above, this is a criminal defense for the arsonist

also, my country doesn't have a "temporary insanity" defense

Try and WAIT for others to make their points BEFORE making an false assumption, ok?

Never said it implicates him in the crime of arson. Just that enough juries out there would consider that he'd share some of the blame. Good luck in getting his insurance claim. And, I'm sure that if anyone was hurt in the fire, he'd have a fat lawsuit breathing down his neck.

It's obvious you're one of them toxic debaters. And I've already made my point.

I've wasted just about enough time with you.

Originally posted by Oliver North
are you actually confusing causality with criminal responsibility.

Ooh, he's like Shakya. Neat.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Try and WAIT for others to make their points BEFORE making an false assumption, ok?

Never said it implicates him in the crime of arson. Just that enough juries out there would consider that he'd share some of the blame. Good luck in getting his insurance claim. And, I'm sure that if anyone was hurt in the fire, he'd have a fat lawsuit breathing down his neck.

It's obvious you're one of them toxic debaters. And I've already made my point.

I've wasted just about enough time with you.

so you concede that the cinema owner is not legally culpable for the arson of his cinema?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Ooh, he's like Shakya. Neat.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Ooh, he's like Shakya. Neat.

Like Castle King how cute... poor gay war veterans

Also, just did a very brief Google look, the idea of black people being found not guilty for crimes as a result of racism is known as "Black Rage", and has been used successfully in a number of cases dating back to the 1880s.

However, the context in which it is used is not remotely comparable to "invited black people over and insulted them", but deals more with situations where a black family, whose home had been picketed for days by 500 white racists, shot one of them. Or of an individual who suffered racism working at a southern plantation as a child and later as an auto worker, who shot those who were oppressing him.

"Black Rage", like all temporary insanity defenses, is an admission of guilt, and often those who successfully use the defense (which is rare) still spend time in hospitals for the criminally insane or end up with simply a reduced sentence. Additionally, "Black Rage" alone never works, and there has to be evidence of real diminished capacity to reason in the individual due to intense racial inequality at, essentially, a social level, the term I'm seeing for it is "social realities".

Not that I'm surprised Nibs didn't know the first thing about the argument he was making....

http://www.law.uconn.edu/system/files/private/harris.pdf (PDF)

Here's a little tidbit I garnered just by doing a little google search.

http://definitions.uslegal.com/f/fighting-words/

Fighting words are words intentionally directed toward another person which are so venomous and full of malice as to cause the hearer to suffer emotional distress or incite him/her to immediately retaliate physically. Fighting words are not an excuse or defense for a retaliatory assault and battery. However, if they are so threatening as to cause apprehension, they can form the basis for a lawsuit for assault, even though the words alone don't constitute an assault.

The utterance of fighting words is not protected by the free speech protections of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The words are often evaluated not only by the words themselves, but the context in which they are spoken. Courts generally impose a requirement that the speaker intended to cuase a breach of the peace or incite the hearer to violence.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Fighting words are not an excuse or defense for a retaliatory assault and battery. However, if they are so threatening as to cause apprehension, they can form the basis for a lawsuit for assault, even though the words alone don't constitute an assault.

But in this case, with your bee comparison, the bee's attacked months after the kid messed with the beehive. Not even one single bee did a thing till 9/11. No prior bee stings.


This wasn't because of a video.

how dare you over-complicate things with facts!!!

you're such a toxic debater

Originally posted by Nibedicus
You know, let's simplify this debate even further. Let's say you own a cinema. Let's say you invite the most violent black gangbangers in your area to a private screening and allowed them to bring lighters and cigarettes to the screening. Let's say you show them the most inflammatory racist mocking movie that can be made.

Whose fault is it that your cinema burned down?

You do realize the "should have known better" doesn't hold up in court very well in most cases, right?

Humor me, if a woman dresses "slutty", flirts with a bunch of men at a bar, flashes her boobs and such and then ends up getting raped by one or more of those men, whose fault is it that she got raped?

Originally posted by Mairuzu
But in this case, with your bee comparison, the bee's attacked months after the kid messed with the beehive. Not even one single bee did a thing till 9/11. No prior bee stings.


This wasn't because of a video.
It wasn't the film's release but the release of a trailer translated to Arabic on Youtube--the Arabic trailer's release happened only days before 9/11.

Though I agree that to say it's a simple cause and effect would be faulty--it's more a case of an excuse to vent pent-up frustration and a rallying call.

Originally posted by Robtard
You do realize the "should have known better" doesn't hold up in court very well in most cases, right?

Humor me, if a woman dresses "slutty", flirts with a bunch of men at a bar, flashes her boobs and such and then ends up getting raped by one or more of those men, whose fault is it that she got raped?

Why would it need to "hold up"?

There's a huge difference between raping someone and being pushed to the point of violence by someone determined to push you to cause violence.

And my point has never been that the people who do violence are excused from it just because someone pushed them to that point. People who do violence should always be prosecuted. It was that people who incite others to do violence should also be held responsible especially when there was loss of life involved.

Originally posted by Mairuzu
When have we recently drone bombed south america? haermm

When have we recently provided aid to militants (even the ones we are fighting on afghanistan) to overthrow their leaders in south america?

Control is already set in place in that location. Sorry, fail. That's what happens when guns are banned.

Originally posted by Oliver North
Wait, why is everyone arguing under the impression that there isn't massive political unrest throughout Latin and South America as a result of American intervention?

How are cartels, the target of the war on drugs, different from Al Qaeda, the target of the war on terror?

When was the last time Colombian drug cartels bombed the shit out of Chinese embassies, kidnapped Russian officials or targeted Nigerian civilians?

Also, I don't remember waves of Nicaraguan terrorists committing terrorist acts around Egypt, Norway, Sweden and such.

If you're going to blame everything on American intervention, which was by the way miles worse in S.A than that in the Middle East, we have to see some kind of pattern.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
When was the last time Colombian drug cartels bombed the shit out of Chinese embassies, kidnapped Russian officials or targeted Nigerian civilians?

Also, I don't remember waves of Nicaraguan terrorists committing terrorist acts around Egypt, Norway, Sweden and such.

If you're going to blame everything on American intervention, which was by the way miles worse in S.A than that in the Middle East, we have to see some kind of pattern. Well Al-Qaeda seems to be in the business of blowing up Western stuff, where as South American cartels seem to be in the business of making money off stuffing Western noses with blow. So attacking their embassies just seems like bad business.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
When was the last time Colombian drug cartels bombed the shit out of Chinese embassies, kidnapped Russian officials or targeted Nigerian civilians?

Also, I don't remember waves of Nicaraguan terrorists committing terrorist acts around Egypt, Norway, Sweden and such.

If you're going to blame everything on American intervention, which was by the way miles worse in S.A than that in the Middle East, we have to see some kind of pattern.

why does the result have to be identical?

in many ways, cartels are worse than al qaeda

Originally posted by Nibedicus
There's a huge difference between raping someone and being pushed to the point of violence by someone determined to push you to cause violence.

"She wanted it, officer. Did you see that top she was wearing?"

Originally posted by Mairuzu
The attack on the embassy which killed Stevens was obviously planned concidering that the movie was released months ago and that the attacks were in multiple areas at the same time aimed to be on 9/11. They aren't just attacking US embassies either.

The crowds in Egypt are rioting for an Al Qaida member, Omar Abdel Rahman aka "The Blind Sheikh" to be freed.

People in Libya were acting in retaliation due to a drone strike in june which killed another Al Qaida operative from Libya, Mohammed Hassan Qaed.



0nPf0waX2HI

http://t.qkme.me/35i296.jpg

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Why would it need to "hold up"?

There's a huge difference between raping someone and being pushed to the point of violence by someone determined to push you to cause violence.

And my point has never been that the people who do violence are excused from it just because someone pushed them to that point. People who do violence should always be prosecuted. It was that people who incite others to do violence should also be held responsible especially when there was loss of life involved.

You were the one saying those arsonist would not be found guilty with a good lawyer, no?

No, it's a like comparison. You're claiming the theater owner is to blame in part because he invited people to his theater, allowed lighters/cigarettes and viewed a racist film. He invited them to smoke and watch a film, not commit a crime.

In some conditions yes, I do think people who incite others to do violence should be prosecuted. But the theater example isn't one of them and to be on topic, neither is the filmmaker(s) of Innocence of Muslims.

Originally posted by rudester
Like Castle King how cute... poor gay war veterans


lol


Who are you? You're not supposed to know who King Castle is with your registration date.

PM me the answer.

Originally posted by Mairuzu
0nPf0waX2HI

This guy is going places. He needs to be put on a national spot at like CNN or Fox.

I doubt that will happen though. He doesn't fit their "agenda"

Originally posted by Laurie
This is the land of the free, and we have free speech. The difference being, we don't fly planes into their countries buildings... We don't bury women up to their waiss, or necks, and stone them. We don't allow ours sons and and fathers to hunt down and murder errant daughters either.

And, I know that not all Muslims are radicals...
Assuming that you are from US, here is what your nation does; impose no-fly-zones; impose unnecessary sanctions; bombard with cruise missiles and drones; occupy other nations illegally; treat POW horribly and even shake hands with the RADICALS for so-called national interests. Their is probably lot more hypocrisy as well.

Please keep your twisted logic to yourself. You are hardly in position to judge other societies.

You are free to do whatever you want to in your country. But don't expect other societies to be tolerant if you insult their beliefs.

You need to realize that freedom of speech and expression without 'responsibility' is bad.

Originally posted by Oliver North lol, and where would one find a clear incitement to violence?



I'm having a lot of trouble figuring out what your point in this thread is, aside from "dem towelheads bad!"

Like, you say that we wouldn't be allowed to protest in their nations, then say how people should adopt the values of the nation they live in. The muslims who are protesting are in fact protesting according to their own nation's values... and by your own logic, it is wrong for us to try and enforce free speech on them...

so I'm not sure if you were just trolling Muslims or if you were aware of the internal inconsistencies...?
Exactly.

Thank you, my Man.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
The closest analogy I could think of here is if you guys saw a beehive and then one of your friends decided to stir it just to troll people and someone got killed because of it. Of course you blame the bees for stinging the guy to death, but the ******* who stirred the bees deserved his teeth kicked in, too.

/shrug
This is why 'responsibility' is important.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Exactly.

Thank you, my Man.

It appears you are suggesting freedom of speech should be curtailed when people are offended, such as your points about "responsibility":

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
You need to realize that freedom of speech and expression without 'responsibility' is bad.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
This is why 'responsibility' is important.

if this is the case, there is no exactly or thank you necessary

we disagree entirely and you missed my point

Originally posted by Oliver North
It appears you are suggesting freedom of speech should be curtailed when people are offended, such as your points about "responsibility":





if this is the case, there is no exactly or thank you necessary

we disagree entirely and you missed my point
Well, if people will not take responsibility for their actions; they will either end up getting exploited or harm/hurt others. Common sense.

Do you think that hate speech should be promoted?

No, but it should be allowed.

Agreed.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Do you think that hate speech should be promoted?

honestly, yes

sunlight is the best disinfectant. These ideas need as much exposure as possible so the people who believe them can be identified and marginalized as the morons they are.

Censorship is a position of cowardice

Originally posted by Oliver North
honestly, yes

sunlight is the best disinfectant. These ideas need as much exposure as possible so the people who believe them can be identified and marginalized as the morons they are.
The Borat Gambit?

I like it

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
No, but it should be allowed.

Originally posted by Tzeentch._
Agreed.

Originally posted by Oliver North
honestly, yes

sunlight is the best disinfectant. These ideas need as much exposure as possible so the people who believe them can be identified and marginalized as the morons they are.

Censorship is a position of cowardice

Then don't complain about reactions.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Then don't complain about reactions. So in your mind, "murder" and "saying mean things" both exist on the same point on the scale?

Like, if I walk up to you and say that you smell bad, you feel that you should have the right to... take my life, in response?

Originally posted by Tzeentch._
So in your mind, "murder: and "saying mean things" both exist on the same point on the scale?

If you want to be liberal about it, they should be the same things because those poor Muslims have no control over their reactions: too much psychological conditioning prevents them from being able to make the choice not to react violently.

Originally posted by Tzeentch._
Like, if I walk up to you and say that you smell bad, you feel that you should have the right to... kill me?

You do know that this is a strawman, right?

It would be a strawman if it wasn't in the form of a question.

I'm asking him to clarify his position, not defining his position.

Regarding your first point: sure, that's certainly a valid point, from a certain point of view. If you possess such a point of view you are a retard, but none-the-less it's still technically valid.

Originally posted by Tzeentch._
So in your mind, "murder" and "saying mean things" both exist on the same point on the scale?
No. But best course of action is to not provoke to such an extreme level in the first place.

Originally posted by Tzeentch._
Like, if I walk up to you and say that you smell bad, you feel that you should have the right to... take my life, in response?
No. By telling me such a thing - you will be doing me a favor and I will fix the problem. In this case, you are trying to help me rather then insult me. Unless if you say so loudly in public with an intent to embarass me. But still my reaction will be not severe.

However, your question is besides the point. Thing here is religious beliefs and sensitivities associated with them. If you will insult my beliefs to the point that I would find it impossible to control myself then would it be still my fault?

Guess what? Humans are not machines programmed to act nice in all situations.

Either act responsibly or accept consequences.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
No. But best course of action is to not provoke to such an extreme level. Okay.

Yes. If it wasn't, no one would ever go to jail for beating the shit out of their loud-mouthed girlfriends.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Either act responsibly or accept consequences.

Murdering someone because you didn't like something they said is responsible behavior?

edit- Do you think that if a black man were to write a news article claiming that John McRacist is a douchebag because he refuses to hire minorities, John McRacist can't be held responsible for beating the black guy's head in with a baseball bat, so long as John McRacist claims that he only did so because the black guy's news article "deeply offended his core beliefs"? I'm curious to see how far you take this logic of "If you say something mean you deserve whatever you get".

Originally posted by Tzeentch._
Yes. If it wasn't, no one would ever go to jail for beating the shit out of their loud-mouthed girlfriends.
It wouldn't be just my fault. The person who initiated the provoking should also be penalized.

You cannot just afford to unnecessarily provoke people and always get away with it.

Originally posted by Tzeentch._
Murdering someone because you didn't like something they said is responsible behavior?
Provoking someone to such an extent is responsible behavior?

Originally posted by Tzeentch._
edit- Do you think that if a black man were to write a news article claiming that John McRacist is a douchebag because he refuses to hire minorities, John McRacist can't be held responsible for beating the black guy's head in with a baseball bat, so long as John McRacist claims that he only did so because the black guy's news article "deeply offended his core beliefs"? I'm curious to see how far you take this logic of "If you say something mean you deserve whatever you get".
What part of 'religious beliefs and sensitivities associated with them' you did not get?

You see every issue from the same lens?

if you lose control and become violent over words, cartoons, movies, or any other form of expression, then you alone should bear the responsibility for your actions.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
It wouldn't be just my fault. The person who initiated the provoking should also be penalized.

You cannot just afford to unnecessarily provoke people and always get away with it.

Why?


Saying something that someone else might find offensive doesn't result in that person no longer breathing. You're making a false comparison.


What is the objective difference between "a belief" and "a religious belief"? There are people out there who have literally killed other people for dissing Starcraft. Why is that reprehensible, yet dissing, say, Allah, is not? Obviously to that Starcraft player, dissing the game is as blasphemous as dissing God is to a Muslim.

Originally posted by dadudemon
If you want to be liberal about it, they should be the same things because those poor Muslims have no control over their reactions: too much psychological conditioning prevents them from being able to make the choice not to react violently.

If you're not saying this for outright lolz, it's little more than relieving people of personal responsibility.

Why I see cultures that force women to dress like ninjas as not only demeaning to women, but demeaning to men as well. It essentially saying 'men can't control themselves cos they're base animals, so we better not tempt them and make women cover themselves.'