ironchimp
Full Member
Simian Overlord
Posts: 456 
|
Post by ironchimp on Jan 17, 2015 16:31:27 GMT -5
I said nothing of being the warrior, you can't kill every barbarian there is but you also don't give into them either as that doesn't achieve anything. You've yet to illustrate how not drawing the profit or giving into any of their other demands would make anything better. About the only solution that will have any net gains towards lasting prosperity is to reach out to Muslim leaders and have an open dialog about why these extremist cells are so popular with the youth and how we can work together to create alternate opportunities that would seem like better options. It's a societal and economic problem,and guns don't solve that, only time, patience and hard work. Warrior is willing to fight or sacrifice his friends, family and children for the assertion not to give it to barbarianism. Put it this way - put a white sheet on and walk through compton. I have no idea - maybe it will all be cool, maybe someone might have more than a word with you. I believe it is your right (and excuse me if i am wrong) as an american to do it - might not be best idea tho - when is something a white sheet and when is it a whole lot more ? Dupont put it best earlier on - when is something incite to racial hatred (a crime here) and when is it free speech? |
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Jan 17, 2015 16:43:45 GMT -5
I said nothing of being the warrior, you can't kill every barbarian there is but you also don't give into them either as that doesn't achieve anything. You've yet to illustrate how not drawing the profit or giving into any of their other demands would make anything better. About the only solution that will have any net gains towards lasting prosperity is to reach out to Muslim leaders and have an open dialog about why these extremist cells are so popular with the youth and how we can work together to create alternate opportunities that would seem like better options. It's a societal and economic problem,and guns don't solve that, only time, patience and hard work. Warrior is willing to fight or sacrifice his friends, family and children for the assertion not to give it to barbarianism. Put it this way - put a white sheet on and walk through compton. I have no idea - maybe it will all be cool, maybe someone might have more than a word with you. I believe it is your right (and excuse me if i am wrong) as an american to do it - might not be best idea tho - when is something a white sheet and when is it a whole lot more ? Dupont put it best earlier on - when is something incite to racial hatred (a crime here) and when is it free speech? It's unlikely I'd be killed, perhaps cursed at or spit at, maybe even pushed or shoved, but not killed because the people in Compton aren't barbarians looking to strike fear into the hearts of innocent men and women and that is the goal of terrorists pure and simple and there's really no comparison between them and the people in Compton at all...in fact that you'd try to make such a comparison at all seems slightly intellectually dishonest to me. As for telling the difference between intentionally trying to incite racial violence and drawing a bit of satire the difference is abundantly clear. |
|
ironchimp
Full Member
Simian Overlord
Posts: 456
|
Post by ironchimp on Jan 17, 2015 16:47:02 GMT -5
people can create coherent arguments for the legitimate use of violence whether we agree with it or not. Not really. If it wasn't self defense or to end mass murder, there really is no coherent or legitimate use of violence. "But they criticized radical Islam!" So what. Grow up. its signs and symbols tho - they carry ideologies. Once something has an ideology behind it then it has multiple meanings. Take this an example - say the next german chancellor waves a swastika... is it inevitably incendariary action? probably yes. does he deserve to be shot for it? one's own belief system will dictate that. will there be repercussions in society for it? definitely Remember for some people this is just part of an ongoing war - this isnt something that exists within its own buble - its part of narrative of self / defense - mass murder. Whether we accept that or not is largely irrelevent . . |
|
ironchimp
Full Member
Simian Overlord
Posts: 456
|
Post by ironchimp on Jan 17, 2015 16:51:19 GMT -5
Warrior is willing to fight or sacrifice his friends, family and children for the assertion not to give it to barbarianism. Put it this way - put a white sheet on and walk through compton. I have no idea - maybe it will all be cool, maybe someone might have more than a word with you. I believe it is your right (and excuse me if i am wrong) as an american to do it - might not be best idea tho - when is something a white sheet and when is it a whole lot more ? Dupont put it best earlier on - when is something incite to racial hatred (a crime here) and when is it free speech? It's unlikely I'd be killed, perhaps cursed at or spit at, maybe even pushed or shoved, but not killed because the people in Compton aren't barbarians looking to strike fear into the hearts of innocent men and women and that is the goal of terrorists pure and simple and there's really no comparison between them and the people in Compton at all...in fact that you'd try to make such a comparison at all seems slightly intellectually dishonest to me. As for telling the difference between intentionally trying to incite racial violence and drawing a bit of satire the difference is abundantly clear. of course i'm not suggesting for one minute you'd be killed - i've been to compton - but it would make some people uncomfortable/ feel threatened / angry. So yes you are exerting your right to free speech but its also intimidation too. "As for telling the difference between intentionally trying to incite racial violence and drawing a bit of satire the difference is abundantly clear." i actually dont think it is abundantly clear in UK law. |
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Jan 17, 2015 17:24:31 GMT -5
Not really. If it wasn't self defense or to end mass murder, there really is no coherent or legitimate use of violence. "But they criticized radical Islam!" So what. Grow up. its signs and symbols tho - they carry ideologies. Once something has an ideology behind it then it has multiple meanings. Take this an example - say the next german chancellor waves a swastika... is it inevitably incendariary action? probably yes. does he deserve to be shot for it? one's own belief system will dictate that. will there be repercussions in society for it? definitely Remember for some people this is just part of an ongoing war - this isnt something that exists within its own buble - its part of narrative of self / defense - mass murder. Whether we accept that or not is largely irrelevent . . It's not a "one's own belief system will decide" situation at all, you don't just get to decide you can kill someone. Period. Will some rationalize otherwise and offer up excuses for their behavior? Invariably, but that doesn't mean that we grant them leniency. It's unlikely I'd be killed, perhaps cursed at or spit at, maybe even pushed or shoved, but not killed because the people in Compton aren't barbarians looking to strike fear into the hearts of innocent men and women and that is the goal of terrorists pure and simple and there's really no comparison between them and the people in Compton at all...in fact that you'd try to make such a comparison at all seems slightly intellectually dishonest to me. As for telling the difference between intentionally trying to incite racial violence and drawing a bit of satire the difference is abundantly clear. of course i'm not suggesting for one minute you'd be killed - i've been to compton - but it would make some people uncomfortable/ feel threatened / angry. So yes you are exerting your right to free speech but its also intimidation too. "As for telling the difference between intentionally trying to incite racial violence and drawing a bit of satire the difference is abundantly clear." i actually dont think it is abundantly clear in UK law. This is one of the reasons why the comparison doesn't work, the purpose of the art was an artistic statement not to intimidate, so if we're going to compare it to the white sheet in Compton we have to assume it was for art and not intimidation as well for it to be apples to apples. But heck, even if we say the purpose of looking like a Klan member was to intimidate (and in which case your comparison is worthless) unless you do so in the company of many others in similar dress you are likely to fail in your effort to intimidate. But again, even if you did intimidate them they still wouldn't be justified in killing you. And it may be muddy legally but rationally? Not so much, if it's purpose is to use humor to point out a vice of a group or to criticize an idea it's satire...if it's a mob of people standing on a corner shouting racial epithets at another group it could be an attempt to incite racial violence. |
|
|
|
Post by spoon on Jan 17, 2015 17:24:39 GMT -5
No, for me, I want extremists to be defeated (and not have their demands satisfied) precisely because their viewpoint is very familiar. People who view violence as a fair responses to these cartoons are pretty much bigots. They view Muslims as superior, so they think things like religious insults and apostasy merit death. Folks that do evil don't usually clink wine glasses together, while toasting "To evil", and then cackling maniacally. Rather, they often rationalize themselves as victims. White supremacist often portray themselves trying to defend white people from subjugation or extinction. Right-wing Christians often portray Christians as a small and oppressed group in the U.S., despite being the overwhelming majority. They will harass atheists and members of minority religions who dare to complain about efforts to put proselytizing into public schools. Honor killers often portray themselves as defenders of the family honor from female relatives who did evil. for many people its the USA / Britain / Spain who are the extremists. Its a born again Christian and a closet catholic enacting genocide. Kind of looked like a holy war to many people. So do you agree with me now? Because that pretty much bolsters my point. You have Islamist who "perceive" things in ways that don't reflect reality. They're deeply bigoted. They use it justify indiscriminate killing of civilians in the USA, Britain, Spain, etc. First of all, someone who would consider the Iraq War to be a genocide because Tony Blair is Catholic is a raving bigot. I'm an atheist, but I was raised Catholic. I don't know why Catholic should be considered some suspect class. Catholics are a huge, very diverse group. I find it extremely odd when I hear Catholics described homogenous, religious extremists. It's so ludicrously, far from the truth. People who perceive Catholics either haven't met many Catholics or are intentionally trying to stir religious hatred. I'm not sure how else I can convey how incredibly detached from reality this view is. Second, I'm no fan of George W. Bush, but to call the Iraq War a genocide conducted by the U.S. (or the Coalition) is false. Words have meaning. A war can't just be labeled a genocide because you don't like a side. It wasn't a systematic killing based on race, religion, etc. On the old board, I got even the most intractably anti-U.S. poster I knew to agree Bush wasn't committing genocide in Iraq. I don't think he ever conceded anything else to me in a debate, but it's an objectively baseless charge. Third, it didn't seem like a holy war to rational people. Bush stupidly use the word "crusade", I believe shortly after 9/11. But there weren't any mass conversions. No imposition of Christianity. In fact, I'm guessing Christians probably had a net loss of power in Iraq since the invasion. Tariq Aziz, the Iraq Foreign Minister who was probably the second most prominent Iraq political figure, prior to the invasion was a Christian. |
|
|
|
Post by spoon on Jan 17, 2015 17:31:57 GMT -5
Every thug,thief,wife-beater or murderer will give you a justification for their actions."He dis-respected me", "They looked at me funny". Sorry, I don't care about your sob stories.The actions of these particular terrorists will hopefully grant them an eternal hell. All they wound up doing was continuing the cycle of hate and violence thats sob stories that include genocide by the way. They are still trying to work out who all those people are in mass graves in the balkans. Again, I don't understand how this is supposed to be a counterargument. If anything, I would cite the break-up of Yugoslavia as a blindingly obvious evidence that the major Western powers weren't engage in some crusade against Islam. NATO essentially sided with a predominantly Muslim group against a predominantly Christian. They actually bombed a predominantly Christian European capital to protect Muslims from atrocities. Because of NATO actions, the number of Muslim-majority countries in Europe has tripled (Bosnia and Kosovo added to just Albania, I don't really Turkey since most of it is in Asia). |
|
|
|
Post by spoon on Jan 17, 2015 17:36:01 GMT -5
And I don't agree with the comparisons to Northern Ireland here. I'd be aligned differently relative to other posters on the board on that. I don't really feel like getting into that right now because that bit of thread-drifting might take a huge chunk of my Saturday. Maybe some other time.
|
|
ironchimp
Full Member
Simian Overlord
Posts: 456
|
Post by ironchimp on Jan 17, 2015 18:17:33 GMT -5
thats sob stories that include genocide by the way. They are still trying to work out who all those people are in mass graves in the balkans. Again, I don't understand how this is supposed to be a counterargument. If anything, I would cite the break-up of Yugoslavia as a blindingly obvious evidence that the major Western powers weren't engage in some crusade against Islam. NATO essentially sided with a predominantly Muslim group against a predominantly Christian. They actually bombed a predominantly Christian European capital to protect Muslims from atrocities. Because of NATO actions, the number of Muslim-majority countries in Europe has tripled (Bosnia and Kosovo added to just Albania, I don't really Turkey since most of it is in Asia). you have to remember europe basically did nothing. In fact there were peoples who were happy to turn a blind eye to it. It was US who came in and sorted it out. Plus some UN events there are regarded as utterly shameful. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2015 18:23:27 GMT -5
Not really. If it wasn't self defense or to end mass murder, there really is no coherent or legitimate use of violence. "But they criticized radical Islam!" So what. Grow up. its signs and symbols tho - they carry ideologies. Once something has an ideology behind it then it has multiple meanings. Take this an example - say the next german chancellor waves a swastika... is it inevitably incendariary action? probably yes. does he deserve to be shot for it? one's own belief system will dictate that. will there be repercussions in society for it? definitely Remember for some people this is just part of an ongoing war - this isnt something that exists within its own buble - its part of narrative of self / defense - mass murder. Whether we accept that or not is largely irrelevent . . It doesn't matter what it means. Any time ink on paper drives someone to murder, the murderer was wrong, and an asshole, and a scumbag. End of story. If Christians freaked out and committed murder every time an offensive Jesus meme was posted online the world would be worse off. There is absolutely no excuse, no explanation, and no rationalization for it. If ink on paper offends someone to the point of committing murder, that person is wrong 100% of the time. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2015 18:26:16 GMT -5
Again, I don't understand how this is supposed to be a counterargument. If anything, I would cite the break-up of Yugoslavia as a blindingly obvious evidence that the major Western powers weren't engage in some crusade against Islam. NATO essentially sided with a predominantly Muslim group against a predominantly Christian. They actually bombed a predominantly Christian European capital to protect Muslims from atrocities. Because of NATO actions, the number of Muslim-majority countries in Europe has tripled (Bosnia and Kosovo added to just Albania, I don't really Turkey since most of it is in Asia). you have to remember europe basically did nothing. In fact there were peoples who were happy to turn a blind eye to it. It was US who came in and sorted it out. Plus some UN events there are regarded as utterly shameful. I think you completely misunderstood my post. Something "inciting" racial hatred because a fanatic saw it and committed murder, that's not inciting hatred. Fanatics will find a reason to be fanatics. A woman not covering her face? Chop her f**king head off. Now, if instead of an image of Mohammad, it was instructions on how to make an IED and a suggestion to plant it at a mosque, that's a different story. As well as celebrating those who do it. An image of Mohammad is not the same as saying "Billy Bob was right for shooting that cab driver in a turban. I wish there were more people like him." Because simply depicting Mohammad is not encouraging, endorsing, or promoting violence. It's a drawing of a guy who died over a thousand years ago. Nothing more. We can't control what offends religious fanatics. Some are offended by Harry Potter. Some are offended by Charles Darwin. F**k 'em. They need to grow up. |
|
ironchimp
Full Member
Simian Overlord
Posts: 456
|
Post by ironchimp on Jan 17, 2015 18:36:39 GMT -5
for many people its the USA / Britain / Spain who are the extremists. Its a born again Christian and a closet catholic enacting genocide. Kind of looked like a holy war to many people. So do you agree with me now? Because that pretty much bolsters my point. You have Islamist who "perceive" things in ways that don't reflect reality. They're deeply bigoted. They use it justify indiscriminate killing of civilians in the USA, Britain, Spain, etc. First of all, someone who would consider the Iraq War to be a genocide because Tony Blair is Catholic is a raving bigot. I'm an atheist, but I was raised Catholic. I don't know why Catholic should be considered some suspect class. Catholics are a huge, very diverse group. I find it extremely odd when I hear Catholics described homogenous, religious extremists. It's so ludicrously, far from the truth. People who perceive Catholics either haven't met many Catholics or are intentionally trying to stir religious hatred. I'm not sure how else I can convey how incredibly detached from reality this view is. Second, I'm no fan of George W. Bush, but to call the Iraq War a genocide conducted by the U.S. (or the Coalition) is false. Words have meaning. A war can't just be labeled a genocide because you don't like a side. It wasn't a systematic killing based on race, religion, etc. On the old board, I got even the most intractably anti-U.S. poster I knew to agree Bush wasn't committing genocide in Iraq. I don't think he ever conceded anything else to me in a debate, but it's an objectively baseless charge. Third, it didn't seem like a holy war to rational people. Bush stupidly use the word "crusade", I believe shortly after 9/11. But there weren't any mass conversions. No imposition of Christianity. In fact, I'm guessing Christians probably had a net loss of power in Iraq since the invasion. Tariq Aziz, the Iraq Foreign Minister who was probably the second most prominent Iraq political figure, prior to the invasion was a Christian. not because he was a catholic. Slaughter full stop. Whether that perception is correct or not is another matter. But there were large scale worldwide protests, and the UK dossier needed for their mandate to go to war was discredited. The fact that he then revealed himself to be a catholic afterwards added another layer to it all for some people. as i am sure you know the monarch in UK could not marry a catholic until a couple of years ago i believe. Plus there has historically been a pretty strong anti-catholic tradition in England for better or for worse. Plus to be perfectly honest saying he was a catholic while in office would have been controversial / potentially damaging to his chances of getting re-elected. |
|
ironchimp
Full Member
Simian Overlord
Posts: 456
|
Post by ironchimp on Jan 17, 2015 18:41:57 GMT -5
you have to remember europe basically did nothing. In fact there were peoples who were happy to turn a blind eye to it. It was US who came in and sorted it out. Plus some UN events there are regarded as utterly shameful. I think you completely misunderstood my post. Something "inciting" racial hatred because a fanatic saw it and committed murder, that's not inciting hatred. Fanatics will find a reason to be fanatics. A woman not covering her face? Chop her f**king head off. Now, if instead of an image of Mohammad, it was instructions on how to make an IED and a suggestion to plant it at a mosque, that's a different story. As well as celebrating those who do it. An image of Mohammad is not the same as saying "Billy Bob was right for shooting that cab driver in a turban. I wish there were more people like him." Because simply depicting Mohammad is not encouraging, endorsing, or promoting violence. It's a drawing of a guy who died over a thousand years ago. Nothing more. We can't control what offends religious fanatics. Some are offended by Harry Potter. Some are offended by Charles Darwin. F**k 'em. They need to grow up. "Not to mention, promoting hate against Muslims is also illegal in France. It just turns out that drawing Mohammad is not considered promoting hate on the same level as celebrating someone who had just murdered a dozen people." I apologise - I thought you meant they should be considered equally. |
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Jan 17, 2015 20:01:11 GMT -5
Let's watch the language, folks. I'll be putting in a few f**k's right now.
|
|
ironchimp
Full Member
Simian Overlord
Posts: 456
|
Post by ironchimp on Jan 17, 2015 20:13:45 GMT -5
you have to remember europe basically did nothing. In fact there were peoples who were happy to turn a blind eye to it. It was US who came in and sorted it out. Plus some UN events there are regarded as utterly shameful. I think you completely misunderstood my post. Something "inciting" racial hatred because a fanatic saw it and committed murder, that's not inciting hatred. Fanatics will find a reason to be fanatics. A woman not covering her face? Chop her f**king head off. Now, if instead of an image of Mohammad, it was instructions on how to make an IED and a suggestion to plant it at a mosque, that's a different story. As well as celebrating those who do it. An image of Mohammad is not the same as saying "Billy Bob was right for shooting that cab driver in a turban. I wish there were more people like him." Because simply depicting Mohammad is not encouraging, endorsing, or promoting violence. It's a drawing of a guy who died over a thousand years ago. Nothing more. We can't control what offends religious fanatics. Some are offended by Harry Potter. Some are offended by Charles Darwin. F**k 'em. They need to grow up. again tho - a swastika is just 6 lines - but you cant do it germany. is that right? I completely agree with you but personally on every level i think it was a bad idea and my country will suffer. If one accepts that it was inevitable someone would shoot the cartoonist (and for me it was inevitable rightly or wrongly) this opened the door for yet more new anti privacy laws in britain which had already been blocked but now have legitimacy, far right on streets, new members for these groups, and random retaliatory attacks. That was also inevitable. In other words a leftist anti establishment magazines actions will lead to new authoritarianism through loss of freedom (not a blow for freedom) and growth in far right. It was such a terrible idea. |
|
