Pam Geller's Response [W:725]

[Grant]

Not to speak for MadLib, but Geller was a vehement objector to the Park 51 mosque, and I'm pretty sure protesting the building of a house of worship (especially one that, despite the constant references to it as the "Ground Zero Mosque," was two blocks away from the World Trade Center, and it wasn't just a mosque) certainly makes it seem like she doesn't have much use for religious freedom.

Right. You instinctively understand why Muslims are justified in trying to kill her.

 

[Kobie]

Right. You instinctively understand why Muslims are justified in trying to kill her.

I am getting really ****ing sick of your idiotic strawman arguments. I never said any act of violence against her was justified. Stop lying your ass off and claiming I am.

 

[VanceMack]

I see you avoided answering the questions. I repeat, if they are not brainless, ****ing savages, what are they?

They are human beings, WITH fully functioning brains, that consciously choose to behave like savages.

Your turn. Is the rape victim responsible for his or her own rape because they choose to wear revealing clothing? Are they guilty of contributory negligence and really after all...is the rapist just a poor mindless beat that was taunted into committing the act of rape?

 

[Mithrae]

Pam Geller’s Mohammed contest was an important expression of free speech, says … Chris Hayes?


Hayes counters that with an analogy to editorial freedom. If MSNBC told him he couldn’t run a segment because it might reflect badly on an advertiser, he’d feel obliged to run it even if he thought initially that it was too weak to air. Once you’ve been extorted over something you have a right to say, it’s more important to resist the extortion than to worry about whether what you have to say is particularly interesting. It’s about incentives, and reducing the extorter’s incentive to extort is a valuable contribution to free speech even if airing your crappy segment isn’t. Geller’s cartoon contest, like Charlie Hebdo’s post-massacre cover, is an attempt to show jihadis that attacking blasphemers won’t end the blasphemy; if anything, by making martyrs and celebrities of them, it’ll encourage it. It’s a bid to reduce the incentive to kill. Whether it’s a smart strategy is hard to say — some jihadis may want to encourage public expressions of sympathy with Charlie Hebdo and Geller, to show western Muslims that the decadent infidel sides with those who insult the prophet — but it’s not, as many stupid media types have claimed this week, an attempt to get people at the event killed. On the contrary, it’s a way to show would-be killers that they need to try another tactic if they’re serious about ending blasphemy, or at least ending public interest in it. Take away the risk of bombs going off and Geller’s cartoon contest wouldn’t have gotten any press at all this week. That’s the lesson. Nice to know that one left-wing media personality got it......snip~

Pam Geller’s Mohammed contest was an important expression of free speech, says … Chris Hayes? « Hot Air

Whether or not that was actually the motivation for the event, this is a compelling rationalisation.

 

[VanceMack]

Whether or not that was actually the motivation for the event, this is a compelling rationalisation.

Mithrae...your avatar is hate speech. You are no better than Pam Geller. Perhaps worse considering the element of hypocrisy.

 

[Andalublue]

They are human beings, WITH fully functioning brains, that consciously choose to behave like savages.

Your turn. Is the rape victim responsible for his or her own rape because they choose to wear revealing clothing? Are they guilty of contributory negligence and really after all...is the rapist just a poor mindless beat that was taunted into committing the act of rape?

If I'd thought rape was an appropriate analogy for this situation, I'd have made it. It's a poor analogy. My zoo analogy was better, since it showed a desire on the part of the victim to elicit some kind of response from the offender, that's the 'contributory' part in 'contributory negligence', something that the victim in your analogy does not do.

 

[Anglo-scot]

We can all think that this group deserves this or that treatment in response to their attitudes and actions. But for me, the only effective means to make progress on problems of jihadism and religious fundamentalism is for different parties to keep talking to each other respectfully.

 

[Mithrae]

Mithrae...your avatar is hate speech. You are no better than Pam Geller. Perhaps worse considering the element of hypocrisy.

In what way is my avatar 'hate speech,' exactly?
What do you think is so bad about Pam Geller?
And in what way am I being hypocritical?

 

[fmw]

You are arguing against a straw man. I haven't condoned terrorism or rape. I haven't suggested that either of your scenarios should expect anything. All I've done is stated the obvious. We face consequences for what we do. Always. Every time. Usually the consequences aren't worth news coverage. A consequence can be something as simple as having someone return a wave or a hello.

I hope Pam Geller keeps doing what she is doing. It appears to smoke out terrorists and get them killed. I just don't want to be anywhere near her myself. That could be a very bad consequence for me.

 

[vesper]

Agreed but when has the left ever cared about being hypocritical?

Part of the problem with progressivism, in order for these folks to further implement their "change" they can not operate under the same standard for all. They operate under double standards which in itself is hypocrisy. Though progressivism is overwhelmingly on the left side of the aisle, it has also infiltrated the right.

 

[MMC]

Agreed but when has the left ever cared about being hypocritical?

When it gets really violent.....not like those lame ass protests and so called riots of today.

Their not much up on handling anything that steps into their space.

 

[Blemonds]

I'm confused. She speaks out against jihadists and that's..... vitriol?

To leftists, apparently so. They all have the same enemy, America

 

[MMC]

Whether or not that was actually the motivation for the event, this is a compelling rationalisation.

 

[Grant]

If I'd thought rape was an appropriate analogy for this situation, I'd have made it. It's a poor analogy. My zoo analogy was better, since it showed a desire on the part of the victim to elicit some kind of response from the offender, that's the 'contributory' part in 'contributory negligence', something that the victim in your analogy does not do.

And your conclusion that Jihadists are wild, uncontrollable animals who lose themselves to ancient feral instincts is not far off the mark, nor is the allusion that the West is much like a child, trustingly putting its hand in the cage, unaware of the mortal dangers lurking within the heart of the beast.

 

[Grant]

I am getting really ****ing sick of your idiotic strawman arguments. I never said any act of violence against her was justified. Stop lying your ass off and claiming I am.

Then why are you bringing up items in her past that you feel makes her look bad? What does all that matter?

 

[Grant]

Part of the problem with progressivism, in order for these folks to further implement their "change" they can not operate under the same standard for all. They operate under double standards which in itself is hypocrisy. Though progressivism is overwhelmingly on the left side of the aisle, it has also infiltrated the right.

Leftists only think in terms of 'left' and 'right' but some of the 'middle' now takes them seriously. That's the danger.

 

[US Conservative]

Part of the problem with progressivism, in order for these folks to further implement their "change" they can not operate under the same standard for all. They operate under double standards which in itself is hypocrisy. Though progressivism is overwhelmingly on the left side of the aisle, it has also infiltrated the right.

Its an irony that hints at the fundamental shortcomings of "egalitarian" leftism.

See, everyone is supposed to be equal, differences are only skin deep, etc.

So when we see some groups getting preferential treatment, or in this case brutal islamists being given a pass-it shows that leftism can not account for these differences and so therefore must become clear hypocrites.

How can the left pretend all cultures are the same if certain cultures must clearly be treated differently?

Even more illustrative is what the response would be if this was say the KKK or a Christian group doing the attacks-the left would be leading the charge.

This is why we are seeing such spin from our forums lefties. I honestly wonder if they are aware of the hoops they have to jump through-and what that suggests.

 

[Andalublue]

And your conclusion that Jihadists are wild, uncontrollable animals who lose themselves to ancient feral instincts is not far off the mark, nor is the allusion that the West is much like a child, trustingly putting its hand in the cage, unaware of the mortal dangers lurking within the heart of the beast.

You're stretching my analogy somewhat, but effectively yes, I do see Jihadists that way; a rancid, anachronistic, ultra-conservatism that derides rationalism, compromise or toleration and hence blinds its adherents to the demands of their own humanity.

There's nothing trusting about the West however. They may be ignorant of the way their neo-imperialist policies are so deeply resented by the ordinary people of the Middle East as much as by the Jihadists, but they are very cynically aware of how they play-up the clash of civilisations rhetoric in order to delegitimise any opposition to their interventions.

As far as the analogy goes, I very specifically didn't use the image of a child placing it's arm uncomprehendingly through the bars of the lion cage, but of an adult reaching through and smacking the lion's snout. Geller, De Wilde et al know exactly what they are doing and we can be under no misapprehension that they are really only against the violent minority of jihadists. They hate Islam and Moslems in general, as do many posters here too.

 

[Grant]

You're stretching my analogy somewhat, but effectively yes, I do see Jihadists that way; a rancid, anachronistic, ultra-conservatism that derides rationalism, compromise or toleration and hence blinds its adherents to the demands of their own humanity.

There's nothing trusting about the West however. They may be ignorant of the way their neo-imperialist policies are so deeply resented by the ordinary people of the Middle East as much as by the Jihadists, but they are very cynically aware of how they play-up the clash of civilisations rhetoric in order to delegitimise any opposition to their interventions.

As far as the analogy goes, I very specifically didn't use the image of a child placing it's arm uncomprehendingly through the bars of the lion cage, but of an adult reaching through and smacking the lion's snout. Geller, De Wilde et al know exactly what they are doing and we can be under no misapprehension that they are really only against the violent minority of jihadists. They hate Islam and Moslems in general, as do many posters here too.

I see Islam as a backward religion with it's hatreds of others well documented in their Holy Book. We are also aware of their treatment of Gays, women, children, etc. so it's hard to find anything very positive about these often violent beliefs. But "hate"? I don;t think so. I've never anyone claim they hate Islam but I've haven't heard much in praise of it either. The negatives do seem to outweigh any positives but if you can come up with any positives many be happy to see them.

 

[VanceMack]

If I'd thought rape was an appropriate analogy for this situation, I'd have made it. It's a poor analogy. My zoo analogy was better, since it showed a desire on the part of the victim to elicit some kind of response from the offender, that's the 'contributory' part in 'contributory negligence', something that the victim in your analogy does not do.

The rape analogy is identical. You simply 'wont' go there because you would either have to admit how foolish your own analogy is or take the rather distasteful stand that women are at least partially responsible for their own rape based on their actions.

 

[Andalublue]

The rape analogy is identical. You simply 'wont' go there because you would either have to admit how foolish your own analogy is or take the rather distasteful stand that women are at least partially responsible for their own rape based on their actions.

You say potayto, I say potahto....your analogy was pathetic and hackneyed; mine was careful and apposite. Women are never responsible for their rape. That's the invention of your imagination, not mine. Clear enough?

 

[VanceMack]

In what way is my avatar 'hate speech,' exactly?
What do you think is so bad about Pam Geller?
And in what way am I being hypocritical?

By altering a well known artistic rendering of Gods creation of Adam. Your avatar would and SHOULD be consider hate speech and you should be viewed with the same disgust and contempt as Geller by those that are shocked and outraged by her comments about Muslims. I would point out...Im not taking that position against Geller...or you...merely pointing out the correlation.

This is the risk of what is happening today with people rushing to make Pam Geller the 'problem' and with their condemnation of her free speech as 'hate speech'. Where does it end?

I did not say you WERE hypocritical...I said 'perhaps' depending on your position.

 

[VanceMack]

You say potayto, I say potahto....your analogy was pathetic and hackneyed; mine was careful and apposite. Women are never responsible for their rape. That's the invention of your imagination, not mine. Clear enough?

Riiiiiiight. Your 'careful' analogy equates Muslim extremists to animals without the capacity for reasoned thought, thereby making it impossible to REALLY blame them and easy to blame the victim.

Bull**** Andy. Your analogy is foolish. At best. Your refusal to apply the same standards to rape victims as you do to Pam Geller and her exercise of free speech is cowardly. At least.

 

[LowDown]

And her editorial is largely built on a strawman. Almost no one is actually blaming her for the shooting, simply commenting that yes, she is an asshole.

Why, exactly, is she an asshole?

 

[Andalublue]

Riiiiiiight. Your 'careful' analogy equates Muslim extremists to animals without the capacity for reasoned thought, thereby making it impossible to REALLY blame them and easy to blame the victim.

I see you don't believe in the existence of brain-washing. Noted.

Bull**** Andy. Your analogy is foolish. At best. Your refusal to apply the same standards to rape victims as you do to Pam Geller and her exercise of free speech is cowardly. At least.

Yadda yadda. Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says. I'm quoting, naturally.