- Joined
- Jan 10, 2015
- Messages
- 14,012
- Reaction score
- 3,439
- Location
- Southern Oregon
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
MIght as well lure them into the open where they can be dealt with as in this case rather than waiting for them to pull another 9-11?
Digging through the last several pages of the thread, it seems that several conservatives seem to believe that defending Geller's right to free speech entails condoning or refraining from criticizing her hateful rhetoric. Somehow, in this alternate universe, pointing out that she's a hateful bigot (even while pointing out she has the right to be) means liberals are "against free speech."
awww.. you can lie about what i say, but i can't lie about what you say?... that's not very fair.
C'mon, you know the racket. Even saying what Geller's group was doing was legal yet kinda prickish and that violent response was wrong means you're absolving the attackers.
Meet the new left. Isis isn't the problem, conservatives are. And the TEA party is worse than Hamas. See how this works?
The difference here is in how you PERCEIVE the two rallies.
It used to be the left would rally behind an artist to defend the art and expression-remember piss Christ?
But if its a muslim who might be offended (imagine that) and suddenly its crickets.
You dont have to agree with my observation just understand how you appear.
WRONG WRONG WRONG
in a free society, leaders of cults, politicians, celebrities etc are all going to be the target of criticism. I don't recall any Christians shooting up an artu museum in reaction to the "piss Christ" exhibit.
making fun of Mohammed is a free speech exercise that we Americans should protect and defend. and if people want to commit violence as a result, I say shoot them down as the cop did in this case
I changed it to misrepresent... sorry about the liar comment that yo apparently quoted prior to my changing it.
I clarified why I said what I said a few posts above this... ^^^
I believe the difference comes down to intent, or at least perceived intent.What really puzzles me is how so called enlightened liberals/progressives worldwide, somehow think it morally ok for those at Charlie Hebdo to draw cartoons and be martyrs for the cause, but it's not ok for Pam Geller. :blink:
no worries.. i'm not offended... I won't come shoot at you or otherwise assault you.
my short skirt analogy relies on incitement of sexual thoughts (not an invitation for sex, as you said) of some men.
talking trash about Mohammed, or drawing pictures of him, or whatever...incites anger in some extremists Muslims.
inciting these emotions simply doesn't' justify illegitimate reactions... and the victim ,in either case, is held blameless for the illegitimate actions of those whom retaliate.
no one has to like or agree with what these people are doing... but they have the right to do so, and nobody has the right to assault them over their speech.... end of story.
there's no hemming and hawwing about it.. there's no bull**** about " that's not legitimate free speech" or whatever... all that is nonsense. it's very cut and dry.
calling her and her people hateful bigots is irrelevant to the issue.... she did nothign wrong and did not deserve any attempt to assault her and her people... period.
her behavior or beliefs come into play if they were illegitimate... other than that, they don't matter one bit.
The incident in Texas is perceived not only as taking target at a single group (Islam), but even worse they appear to goading & baiting them into a fight.
Not at all. The two are separate. Doing something stupid, purposely drawing offensive pictures, is stupid and inciting violence. They are to blame for that but not for the violence... that is 100% the attackers fault. Putting a hand grenade in a childrens park is stupid especially if you know that there are people that want to pull the pin out there that will do it.
libs are against Free Speech if it counters their religion....that being liberalism! liberalism transcends all rational thought!
awww.. you can lie about what i say, but i can't lie about what you say?... that's not very fair.
in that case, some of us would still blame the violent extremists, and you guys would still blame the group holding the event.
Quite honestly, you don't seem like a liberal to me.libs are against Free Speech if it counters their religion....that being liberalism! liberalism transcends all rational thought!
no worries.. i'm not offended... I won't come shoot at you or otherwise assault you.
my short skirt analogy relies on incitement of sexual thoughts (not an invitation for sex, as you said) of some men.
talking trash about Mohammed, or drawing pictures of him, or whatever...incites anger in some extremists Muslims.
inciting these emotions simply doesn't' justify illegitimate reactions... and the victim ,in either case, is held blameless for the illegitimate actions of those whom retaliate.
no one has to like or agree with what these people are doing... but they have the right to do so, and nobody has the right to assault them over their speech.... end of story.
there's no hemming and hawwing about it.. there's no bull**** about " that's not legitimate free speech" or whatever... all that is nonsense. it's very cut and dry.
calling her and her people hateful bigots is irrelevant to the issue.... she did nothign wrong and did not deserve any attempt to assault her and her people... period.
her behavior or beliefs come into play if they were illegitimate... other than that, they don't matter one bit.
Agreed, which makes my point.
FearandLoathing conflated the two, not seeing any difference between an LGBT rally and an event solely devoted to provoking retaliation. The GOP is doomed to fail on a national level until people like that are no longer the majority of the GOP base.
Why doesn't anything I've previously said not apply PissChrist..Piss Christ - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Yes the artist has a right to produce the art, but does his right to produce it free him from the consequences of making that art? When you do things to cause a reaction, especially one that wouldn't have happened otherwise, then you share in the blame for the consequences.
Answered in post #661 right above this... though your failure to be able to read will hinder your comprehension.
One thing came to mind when I heard about Pamela Geller's event in Texas ----- wow ----- that takes some balls.
And then after hearing about the shooting, I thought ---- attacking at an event in TEXAS thinking you'll actually be able to carry out your plan before someone shoots you?.... in TEXAS??? LOL!
wearing short skirts has been argued to be a justification of rape...the analogy fits this scenario pretty well.
drawing Mohammed may incite anger in the same way a short skirt incites sexual thoughts.... neither justify an unlawful response, though... in both cases, the victim is 100% innocent of wrongdoing.
To the bolded. Not really, it just takes hate, and ignorance.
I didn't say that she is guilty of a crime. I said that she holds some blame. Learn to read.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?