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).
[EDIT]: 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.
The attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya and the killing of the U.S. ambassador and several aides is another tragic example of how our interventionist foreign policy undermines our national security. The more the U.S. tries to control the rest of the world, either by democracy promotion, aid to foreign governments, or by bombs, the more events spin out of control into chaos, unintended consequences, and blowback.Unfortunately what we saw in Libya this week is nothing new.
In 1980s Afghanistan the U.S. supported Islamic radicals in their efforts to expel the invading Soviet military. These radicals became what we now know as al-Qaeda, and our one-times allies turned on us most spectacularly on September 11, 2001.
Iraq did not have a significant al Qaeda presence before the 2003 U.S. invasion, but our occupation of that country and attempt to remake it in our image caused a massive reaction that opened the door to al Qaeda, leading to thousands of US soldiers dead, a country destroyed, and instability that shows no sign of diminishing.
In Libya we worked with, among others, the rebel Libyan Fighting Group (LIFG) which included foreign elements of al-Qaeda. It has been pointed out that the al-Qaeda affiliated radicals we fought in Iraq were some of the same groups we worked with to overthrow Gaddafi in Libya. Last year in a television interview I predicted that the result of NATO’s bombing of Libya would likely be an increased al-Qaeda presence in the country. I said at the time that we may be delivering al-Qaeda another prize.
Not long after NATO overthrew Gaddafi, the al Qaeda flag was flown over the courthouse in Benghazi. Should we be surprised, then, that less than a year later there would be an attack on our consulate in Benghazi? We have been told for at least the past eleven years that these people are the enemy who seeks to do us harm.
There is danger in the belief we can remake the world by bribing some countries and bombing others. But that is precisely what the interventionists – be they liberal or conservative – seem to believe. When the world does not conform to their image, they seem genuinely shocked. The secretary of state’s reaction to the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi was one of confusion. “How could this happen in a country we helped liberate, in a city we helped save from destruction,” she asked.
The problem is that we do not know and we cannot know enough about these societies we are seeking to remake. We never try to see through the eyes of those we seek to liberate. Libya is in utter chaos, the infrastructure has been bombed to rubble, the economy has ceased to exist, gangs and militias rule by brutal force, the government is seen as a completely illegitimate and powerless U.S. puppet. Is anyone really shocked that the Libyans do not see our bombing their country as saving it from destruction?
Currently, the U.S. is actively supporting rebels in Syria that even our CIA tells us are affiliated with al Qaeda. Many of these radical Islamist fighters in Syria were not long ago fighting in Libya.
Doesn’t it seem strange to anyone that this week the head of Al Qaeda, Zawahri, released a video calling on all Muslims to back the rebels in Syria, saying the overthrow of President Bashar al-Assad would bring them closer to the ultimate goal of defeating Israel?
We must learn from these mistakes and immediately cease all support for the Syrian rebels, lest history once again repeat itself. We are literally backing the same people in Syria that we are fighting in Afghanistan and that have just killed our ambassador in Libya! We must finally abandon the interventionist impulse before it is too late.
I sincerely hope that we may finally have learned something in the aftermath of the tragedy in Libya. I hope it might finally serve as a wake-up call that our interventionist foreign policy is causing us real harm. It is bankrupting our economy and it is turning the rest of the world against us.
More wise words from the doctor
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 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.
-_-
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.
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? [oops, missed Ush's last post]
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 😛
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.
[citation needed]
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" [sic], 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.