Two Islamist dead after attacking cartoon event in Texas
- Thread starter LickRus
- Start date
Geller is a blowhard who I've seen on Fox a few times. But she can't be all bad can she - I mean she has been anointed Public Enemy #1 by the likes of the Southern Poverty Law Center, Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) and Media Matters.
She supports Breivik, the lunatic who killed all those kids in Norway. You think "she can't be all bad"?
Of all the dickish things you have ever said - and there have been many, many, many - this is likely the most dickish.
You get to make a snide, little snickering slight at a few of the lefty organizations you hate by embracing a woman who applauds child-killers. Well done.
To which as to the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution one can only say so what.
Are you actually arguing that the First Amendment - Political Free Speech, should only apply to pleasant speech about which everyone agrees?
Are you attempting to argue that doing something that someone finds deeply offensive justifies a murderous response?
Or are you actually arguing that holding the drawing contest was unwise.
do you support christian terrorists who exercise their free speech by giving out the addresses of abortion doctors online, in hopes of some nut visiting the said doctor and killing them or doing them harm?
No I don't support them. But if Courts in those states have found that this constitutes protected speech. . . .
I would also say that they are lousy excuses for Christians, just as more Muslim Imams are now speaking out saying that terrorists are not good Muslims.
I would also say that we do not seem to have a growing problem with Christian Terrorism, we certainly do with Islamic Terrorism. Indeed BBC International Radio had a program yesterday which largely dealt with Canada and Internet radicalization - the National War Memorial murder, the ISIS recruits from Alberta etc. . . .
Obviously the Muslims Extremists in question were wrong to do what they did.
But, as Larry Wilmore said on his program last night, is it impossible for two groups of people to be wrong at the same time?
If a bunch of skinheads were marching down the street declaring all Jews are scum, and a bunch of psycho Jews with guns decided that the skinheads should all die, I wouldn't at all side with the psycho Jews..
Having said that, It still wouldn't make the message of hate, that the skinheads (or in this case the "Draw cartoons of the Islamic Prophet Mohammed" contestants) were spreading, any less repugnant..
But, as Larry Wilmore said on his program last night, is it impossible for two groups of people to be wrong at the same time?
If a bunch of skinheads were marching down the street declaring all Jews are scum, and a bunch of psycho Jews with guns decided that the skinheads should all die, I wouldn't at all side with the psycho Jews..
Having said that, It still wouldn't make the message of hate, that the skinheads (or in this case the "Draw cartoons of the Islamic Prophet Mohammed" contestants) were spreading, any less repugnant..
Here I thought that Anders Breivik had a political manifesto, not that he said I belong to a major Christian Denomination which holds that. . . . . and hence I've gone on this rampage.
Are we speaking legal consequences, public opinion, or principles of a society? Because they're very different things.
Legally, those skinheads have every right to march and say repugnant things. End of discussion.
In terms of public opinion, it's fine and dandy to hate those skinheads or Texas organizers of this contest.
In terms of principles for American society: that's what I'm arguing for. A free society where you cannot say repugnant things is not a free society. The moment you say "you're free to say whatever you want but XYZ", you are no longer in a free society. You have closed the marketplace of ideas. For fuck's sake, you've created newspeak.
No, it isn't impossible for two groups to be wrong at the same time. And it isn't impossible for THREE groups to be wrong at the same time. The Muslim extremists, the people putting on the contest in Texas, AND THE LARRY WILMORE TYPES NOT GETTING THE POINT OF FREE SPEECH.
Were the contest organizers in Texas assholes? Oh, yeah. Were they saying something, doing something, that maybe, just maybe, needed to be done?
Yuppers.
False equivalency. Again, if Christina extemists were trying to kill the creator of Piss Christ or the South Park guys for making Book Of Mormon, you'd have a point. The equivalent of the Christian lunatics who kill abortion doctors would be more along the lines of Muslims honor killings, which happen.
Nobody is saying Christians are lilly-pure, Carling. Nobody is lilly-pure. But when you get down to it, Muslims are more crazy. They're more willing to kill. They put up a bigger body count in terribly incompetent ways. What's scary about Muslim extremists is that they're so intent on killing and they're so terribly, terribly incompetent at it. They're angry Keystone Kops.
They're losers. Whose very loser-dom doesn't make them less frightening: it makes them scarier.
Some people are still dragging out the dead body of Timothy McVeigh as an example of Christian terrorism except they conveniently "forget" he wasn't religious and his terror act wasn't motivated by Christianity and the Bible.
McVeigh was a lover of the "Turner Diaries" (racist white power book) which is a book the group Christian Identity Movement uses as a chief gulideline... he was a fan
You too? Where the fuck did I say that, and why the fuck do people seem to want to put words in my mouth? Jesus fucking Christ, have you ever read anything I've written? Do you REALLY think I would maintain that freedom of speech only applies to PLEASANT and agreeable speech? Me?
Actually, I was saying Pamela Geller is an evil cunt. But yeah. It was unwise. Absolutely protected free speech, not even a molecule of debate on that one, but fucking stupid. Or to quote a resident of the town where it happened:
Sums it up beautifully, really.
http://rudepundit.blogspot.ca/2015/05/pamela-gellers-dream-come-true.html
Legal
PR
Principle
If you believe in the principle, as you are saying here and I have no reason to disbelieve, may I suggest that you make that clear to all and sundry involved?
Because the principle of free speech isn't "easy", and if you're going to believe in it and defend it you might have to say more than "that bitch was stupid".
That said: while I'm not a fan of how these people handled things in Texas, and while I fully support their right to do so, I think their purpose to stir up speech on this topic has validity. Simply as a demonstration of free speech, to do a thing because you can do it, how is this effectively any different than Slut Walks or Scout Willis walking around NYC topless? I know you support that, nobody123, but doesn't this competition in Texas serve as much a purpose as those?
So what makes it "icky" to you? Break it down. What makes this "icky" and Slut Walks/Scout Willis topless (other than the obvious prurient, of course) or any of the hundreds of other ways one can exercise one's freedom of speech/expression? What about this bothers you?
If only the Americans would AMEND their constitution so these people would just KNOW they could say whatever they wanted... Oh wait.. It's called the FIRST AMENDMENT making this whole disgusting exercise of theirs little more than a show of solidarity against ALL MUSLIMS who find the depiction of their Prophet Mohammed to be insulting...
And again many people found "Piss Christ" deeply offensive, and found "The Last Temptation of Christ" and "The Life of Brian" likewise to be insulting, but I don't recall anyone attempting to murder those behind the above.
Pretty much says it all,...again,...doesn't it,...!!!
You forgot JESUS CHRIST SUPER STAR,...
FAST
