SAM, I think that post probably merited ALL CAPS.

SAM: Awesome post. I wish it wouldn't fly over the head of so many people in the world... It really is that ridiculous!

sam does a better job of saying what i want to say then i can.

just because somebody has the right to free speech and uses it, doesn't mean that you have to stop and take the time to actually listen to them. try buying some ear plugs, if you find that you have an obsessive need to stop and listen to them too much.

To begin, there's no need to get personal. If it wasn't your intent, that's what it comes across as.

Anyway, your binary argument doesn't work. There are things that are reasonable and unreasonable (yes, it's subjective, but that's not the point. To pre-empt your argument, conservatives will say "oh well if we allow gay marriage, where does it end? What about pedophilia and beastiality?" It's a stupid argument, so please don't make it). If there is a group that bombs abortion clinics, then should we stop abortion? No, that's *unreasonable*, because in contemporary society, a woman should have the choice to abort a child if she wants. Therefore, to capitulate to that would be sheer nonsense - find the domestic terrorists and arrest them.

But to make a film, deceive the cast and crew (who are suing the director, by the way), and then dub over it in post-production with the complete intent to slander a population you KNOW will get violent, is irresponsible and unnecessary. That film was unreasonable. His irresponsibility led to the death of an Ambassador and 3 staff. Think about that for a second. Ignorance of the fallout is not a legitimate excuse. He was irresponsible and it led to deaths. If you are a lifeguard and show up to work late and someone drowns on your watch, whether you show remorse or not is irrelevant. Your irresponsibility led to someone's death. Absolutely un-fluffing-acceptable.

Citizens in a society have a duty to be responsible. You don't have the right to act like a complete jerk. You don't have the right to yell "fire!" in a crowded theater. You don't have the right to call for the assassination of the president. You don't have the right to incite a mob into violence...etc

That's why we have laws. Because people AREN'T responsible. That's why there's laws against drunk driving...etc. When citizens can't act responsibly, laws need to be put into effect to dissuade irresponsibility.




You are confusing the issues. If a small minority of Christians (in the small thousands) would start burning down embassies and killing people at getting offended, I'd condemn that just as vociferously. I don't see how that's illogical at all. I'd say it's consistent.




That is textbook domestic terrorism. I'd ban the organization and arrest the leaders. Your goal is to coerce a population into agreeing with you by using methods to terrorize the public if you don't get your way. Perhaps you'd like to try another example?

(If your example was to mock Islam, you should try reading up on the tenets of the religion first)

don't think he wants to mock Islam. those people would wig out and try to kill him. is there a limit on how many people that i'm allowed to kill in self-defense because they're interferring with my rights to life and liberty by showing up on my doorstep in an attempt to kill me?

If you don't want to get punched in the face, don't talk fluff. It's as simple as that. If you don't want your family threatened and your neighbours killed, don't talk fluff. Yeah freedom is all well and good, but when it jeopardizes the safety of others, it needs to be redefined. Every time there is a furor, people reprint or reproduce anti-Islam stuff...and it does nothing. Wow, great point you guys are making. You could just not do it and nothing would happen. Instead, you deepen the wounds, and then you ask them why they wince in pain. When they get angry again, you cut them a few more times, and ask why they are angry with you (again). Like I said, the West's response to this is petulant - it's like we're a spoiled teenager who does things out of spite just to show everyone we can. It's time to grow up.

the most you have the right to do, is to talk fluff back to me. you don't have the right to resort to violence simply because i talk fluff. i'm not required to accept your beliefs, just required to let you have them. i know why they're angry... their emotions are in charge of their brain and they can't develop a rational thought because of it.

best reading on these boards in a long time,

Unfortunately, the only item gotten out of reading this thread is entertainment. And there's nothing gained from writing this thread, since all parties are set in their ways, and refuse to consider an alternative viewpoint to their own, wrong, viewpoint.

It's kinda funny though. Despite the (obviously from world events) explosive nature of this topic, we have still been way more civil in this thread than any random "alliance x sucks nuts and cheats with fruits" flame fest.

I'm not sure if this says good or bad things about our forum :D

only because i don't have any booze at the moment. i'll rectify that deficeincy later, call them a bunch of names and earn a proper ban.

bbq. why the heck is there a child screaming it's lungs out outside of my apartment? guess a sibling had to go to school.

TAN, first of all, I was not trying to get personal with my response, and I apologize that it came across that way. The phrase "In a world where TAN makes the rules", was intended to mean "By the reasoning you've put forth". I suppose I should have just used the latter phrase.

Now, I doubt we're ever going to agree, but I'll try one more time to explain - hopefully in a more refined way - what I'm getting at.

There is only one difference between the specific offensive acts which I've used as examples in this thread. That difference is the reaction of those who are offended by the acts. The approach you have suggested here punishes only those who speak out against a violent group, while leaving freedom of speech in tact if it is aimed at a less dangerous group. That approach protects the violent - by law - from any dissenting opinion.

I don't understand where you were trying to go with the hypothetical argument you expected me to make tying this to the conservative view on gay marriage. Some conservatives would indeed make the ridiculous arguments you attributed to them, but what does that have to do with the topic at hand? I just don't understand the connection you expected me to try to make.

You say that adopting a "free speech only against the non-violent" policy would not protect those who bomb abortion clinics from dissent, because in a contemporary world, women should have the right to kill their unborn children. Yes, that's currently the view of a slim majority of Americans. What if opinions shift, and the slim majority decides that abortion should not be legal? Does it then become illegal to speak out in favor of feticide, because you might tick off some nut and cause him to start making bombs?

In contemporary society, the vast majority of people think there's nothing wrong with drawing a cartoon of a religious figure... or writing a book that is critical of a religion's beliefs and practices. So why don't those fall under the "abortion rule", as accepted acts of free speech, whether or not they will result in violence? Why is it not "sheer nonsense to capitulate" in this case as well?

And finally, you say that my fictitious Church of Reagan would be classic domestic terrorism. How does it differ at all from the actions of Muslim Extremists? "Don't speak against us, or we'll start killing people". Both would be reprehesible, and neither should be protected by law from all dissenting opinions.

As to your last paragraph, because if you are familiar with the actual tenets of Islam, what the extremists are doing is bonkers insane. Your religion is just an ignorant parody of Islam (I'm making some assumptions here, so apologies if they are wrong). There is nowhere in Islam that codifies non-defensive violence outside the time period it was written in. The difference between your religion and extremist ANYTHING is spot on though. Look at nationalist Chinese burning down Japanese businesses. So if your religion is a parody of extremism itself, I can see that as a working outline in regards to our discussion.

Regarding the rest of what you said, I have a lot more to say, but am on my phone. I'll get back to it a little later.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/...orld-middle-east-19632673

is that a good article, or a proper view point on the subject?
i'm still trying to figure how they know what Mohamed looks like if there isn't supposed to be any idoltry in the religion. why are they idolizing him instead of following the will of God? maybe most Muslims don't do it, maybe Muslims aren't even showing up to the protests and it's just a bunch of Christians who dress like Muslims? hmm, they might be Jews dressed as Christians pretending to be Muslims... technically, as far as i'm concerned, and until i see anything that substantiates that the Israelis stole the religion from somebody else, i'm going to call it their religion and their one True God, and everybody else is just a bunch of posing copy-cats.

why the heck ain't you Jewish if there is only One True God?

That's funny because I have my own proper version. Nice try though Dibs ;)

i posted the wrong article? or are you talking about a proper version of the Koran, or whatever it's called... you learned to read Arabic, so that you could interpret it properly?

meh, i'm of the opinion that the only way i can engage in free speech, is if other people tolerate it. if they can't tolerate it, then i should probably nuke them.

do you have a proper version that will work on my Nook and that i can buy from Barnes & Noble? plus that was properly translated into English, so that i may read it, if i ever get around to it?

bah, shut the heck up. if there is only One True God, then why ain't you Jewish? near as i can tell they came up with the whole idea and would've copyrighted if copyrighting actually existed back then.

do the Israelites acknowledge that Jesus was their Messiah?
do the Israelites acknowledge that Mohamed was their Messiah?
have i been banned for being obnoxious yet?
Pang must be on vacation.

you figure that if you wipe out the Jews, then the one true god will accept you because you'll be the only decent choice left. just didn't have a clue that he wouldn't be willing to accept anybody that didn't accept his commandments and abide by them.

you can accept the true word of God as it was given to the Israelites, or you can shut the heck up about what you imagine about what the one true god said.

told ya i was going to get drunk and call them a bunch of names.

Dibs... who were you having a conversation with? Somehow I am guessing yourself :P

it's better this way. i don't have to beat anyone to death for being complete morons.

the word of the one true god was given to the Jews. least near as i can tell by what was written

I'm enjoying the direction this is going with the Church of Reagan and the idea of getting revenge by selling cocaine to the people of the country that is pissing you off.

If Dibs goes back on his meds and stops talking to himself, this thread should continue to be fun.

lump it if you don't like it. burn in hell, i don't give a dang. idolize the prophet at your own risk, he told y'all not to do it in the first place.

TAN, WE HAVE OBVIOUSLY REACHED AN IMPASSE, OR MORE ACCURATELY WE STARTED OUT AT ONE.

YOU WILL NEVER CONVINCE ME THAT THE EXISTENCE OF A. VIOLENT FACTION WITHIN A GROUP JUSTIFIES THE CRIMINALIZING OF SPEECH AGAINST THAT GROUP.

LIKEWISE, IT IS CLEAR THAT I WILL NEVER CONVINCE YOU THAT BOWING TO THE EXTREMISTS BY INFRINGING ON THE RIGHTS OF OUR CITIZENS WOULD BE WRONG.

I WILL ANSWER ONE LAST QUESTION FOR YOU BEFORE I BID THIS THREAD ADIEU. WE FOLLOWERS OF THE CHURCH OF REAGAN ARE NOT EXTREMISTS. WE ARE MORE EXTREME THAN EXTREMISTS! WE ARE EXTREMERISTS! TO PROVE OUR DEVOTION TO THE PROPHET, WE WILL EXPLODE ONE PDM COUNTRY FOR EACH COMMENT YOU MAKE HERE FROM THIS POINT FORWARD! GO AHEAD AND SAY WHATEVER YOU WANT, BUT THE RESULTANT EXPLOSIONS WILL BE ON YOUR HEAD!

HA!

SAM

Recommend book.


When Religion Becomes Evil

I will summerize the five steps a religion takes to become violent in nature later:)

Allowing the rioting and violence of the uneducated followers living in cultures which stifle critical thinking and promote said violence and rioting to dictate our laws and policies is a serious affront to our freedom of thought, freedom of expression, freedom of speech and most importantly freedom to seek the truth.

The two most frequent tenets of society that have caused us to lose freedoms for the 'greater good', behave like the animals we evolved from, and generally digress in terms of truth, science and free thought, are religion and blind nationalism. Both are present int he cultures that are rioting. We can not allow their actions to dictate how we live.

The video in question is a pile of steaming feces. It is not funny, it is not clever, and it is not true. However, to allow those 'offended' by it to force us to create laws or prosecute those who made it, is a stepping stone to increased 'anti blasphemy laws' which one day may begin stifling science, physics, cosmology etc as it disproves the notions of 'God's role'

Religion is like a Penis

heh, movies can be made to poke fun at Christianity, Judaism, etc but not Islam? stupid people.

tAN:
I have to agree with you that the directors actions were peurile and reprehensible, BUT. That doesn't make the rioters actions justified in ANY way, and they should be jailed for it. Just saying "oh it's all the directors' fault" is bullcrap.
My question would be why should the Muslim religion get special exceptions that other religions don't get?
Basically, we'd never see these extremist bloodnuts lifting a finger or doing a thing about it if it was a video made about christianity, judaism or buddhism. In fact, these same extremists will casually kill people just for being christian. A prime example right now would be the 14 year old down syndrome girl accused of burning pages of the Koran, which it NOW turns out were seemingly planted on her by at least one of the accusers, in an attempt to have christians removed from the area.
Yet we don't see violent protests about the imam's actions. By the justification you are displaying here tan, it would be ok for the christians in the area to band together and go bomb the imam's local mosque or similar.

Possibly one of the most disgusting things to come out of this whole situation came from Sydney, where a child who couldn't have been more than 5 or 6 was photographed holding up a sign saying "Behead all those who insult the Prophet" or something to that effect.
Link here: http://1389blog.com/...ho-insult-the-prophet.jpg

What kind of parenting and role model setting is that?
That's not respecting anyone, and only breeding hate.
Why can't EVERYONE simply learn a measure of "meh, let it go?"

if people are dying because of the protests, do i get to count them as human sacrifices?

No one is trying to justify their actions at all. No justification is needed - it is what it is. And if it isn't going to change, then just do damage control. Saturating the media with anti-Islam content will only exacerbate the situation.

As I said before, the Muslim religion (Islam) shouldn't get special exceptions, even though they certainly deserve it (look at colonial history - you guys really have NO CLUE how ingrained in their psyches it is. And fluffing about it is about as stupid as fluffing about Native Americans who remember what the white folk did to them).

In an earlier post, I said extremists are extremists, no matter what religion. I hold to that.




I saw that. The mother actually set a better example than most people. She turned herself in. Whether she actually LET her child carry that sign is debatable - no one (last I checked) knows for sure. Either way, a child that young shouldn't be taught such things, so if it was intentional, I agree.

I don't feel that strongly about my argument so it's possible I could agree with you. What I find irritating though is the stubbornness that people have when sticking to this dogmatic belief of open-ended free speech, which doesn't exist anyway, because there are things that aren't protected by the 1st amendment.




Well, not really. What that film did was not only cause riots, but it hurt the reputation of the US itself. It damaged its relations with the amorphous "Muslim world". It caused millions of dollars worth of damage. It's IRRESPONSIBLE. I see no difference between the director of that film and the CEOs of big banks who led to the financial meltdown. If you are going to call for them to be prosecuted due to their irresponsibility, then why the double standard? Because it has to do with YOUR money? What about the ambassador who died? Doesn't he deserve some kind of justice? Four people in Libya died, and you blame it on a bunch of ignorant extremists who just look for opportunities like this.

What's your solution? To kill 1.6b Muslims? To not do anything and let this keep happening? So far, out of all of us here who have posted in this thread, I'm the only one who's offered any sort of solution. Everyone else is just chest-thumping.





Sorry, I was preempting a typical argument used by people in this situation. Since you aren't making that argument, then I apologize and we can move on.




According to this Gallup poll: http://www.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx

The majority of Americans believe abortion should be legal either completely or with restrictions. It's an overwhelming majority, not a slim one. As of May 2012, only 20% of Americans think it should be outright illegal. We're not in danger of your hypothetical.




Sorry, I don't understand what you're trying to say. Could you please rephrase?

Oops, accidentally quoted myself instead of editing. :P

"it's IRRESPONSIBLE"...

You have used that same phrase over and over and it is absolutely correct. It just doesn't equate to "ILLEGAL".

I think the legal terminology you are implying might be used here would include:

- Reckless Endangerment (resulting in involuntary manslaughter?)
- Criminal Negligence? (it must be shown to be willful, which I would say this was and that a "reasonable person" could have foreseen the result, check)

In a civil court (and yes, such a case COULD be brought):

- Wrongful Death

I doubt any of the above would overcome the 1st Amendment right to free speech argument, but the case could be argued.

The other involved in the film suing the film's director/producer/whatever is much more likely to prevail as it involves a willfull (and knowing) act that will damage their reputations and careers and likely violates "reasonable" disclosure. Just because you sign on to the project and relinquish rights to the producer to do what he wants with the content doesn't mean he can go this far, IMHO... but it will also have to prevail in court.

Stepping back from the legal (IANAL, BTW)...

This is protected free speech, IMHO, and that is what is being protested about. Pakistan's government declared today a holiday and specifically encouraged people to go out and protest against "free speech" itself, not just this particular incident. The film is an opening for a larger attack on free speech rights around the world.

i have to say incedents like this are the reason why organized religion should be outlawed. people doing the dumbest fluff in the name of an imaginary being. THAT should be illegal.

"What about the ambassador who died? Doesn't he deserve some kind of justice? Four people in Libya died, and you blame it on a bunch of ignorant extremists who just look for opportunities like this."

are you fluffing serious TAN? i find it absolutley disgusting that you would try to shift the blame of the ambassadors death from the nutjobs who ACTUALLY killed him to the person who you claim "caused" the riots. they should absolutley have justice, the people responsible for those deaths should be found and killed like the dogs they are.

What's your solution? To kill 1.6b Muslims? quoted from tan, yah something like that.... we just leave and let you all kill each other.

What frightens me is the possibility that as science advances and further dispels the questions we have about the origin of humanity and the universe, making the god 'theory' more and more preposterous, the extremists, rather than coming to terms with physical evidence, will seek to kill/overthrow/wage war on those seeking truth.

"Science adjusts its views based on what's observed.

Faith is the denial of observation, so that beliefs can be preserved."

But as Nietzsche said, everything in life is a matter of interpretation, and at any given time the predominant interpretation is based not off of truth, but power.

Religion still has far too much power, even in the western world. I fear that in 50 years, I daresay 100 years, theologians will still be present and arguing their cases. Extremists will still exist, for a percentage of the population is unable to accept we DON'T possess all of the answers, and are willing and set on accepting ANY answer, even an illogical one that simply creates more questions, as long as it's simple and easy to follow rather than go on not knowing.

To a very large percentage of the worlds population it is not imaginary.

I personally put blame on both the people who killed him(Who actually did not do this because of the film from what I know) AND someone who is clearly trying to stir up trouble. There is enough proof of that out there for that imo too.

So when a 5 year old completely believes in Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny, it makes it less imaginary?

What an awful and flawed argument. Sorry locket, love ya, but my bullsh*t detector won't allow for such posts.

That's funny because there are billions who believe that these things are not imaginary. It is something that they believe to be real unlike something that we made up for kids as holiday fun. I myself am not religious but you can not prove that nothing exists and it is a huge part of their lives. That is all I was stating. If half of Earth's population believes something to be true you should probably be considerate of them.

No, you can't prove that anything DOESN'T exist. You can create any thing in your head, and there is no one who can, without a doubt, prove it doesn't exist. The onus isn't on us to prove god doesn't exist, it's on them to prove it DOES.

We created 'god' and religion to answer questions posed about the world, life, etc. We invented these fairy tales, and now we kill each other over them. It makes my stomach turn.

If there was no religion people would kill eachother in the name of something else. IMO it is simply the onus of those on the one side to allow the others the freedom of their belief. It goes both ways. They don't have to convert every person and those who choose not to believe don't have to convert them.

Ummm, actually, you're wrong. Most of our ancestors--pretty much every ancient civilization we know of--had belief in proof of some sort of divine being, whether it be God, Allah, Buddha, etc. The Catholic Church held great power back in the middle ages because back then, there was really no way for most of the population to learn about anything else. To our ancestors, "God" had already been proven to exist.

Of course, when corruption of these beliefs infected these civilizations, you then had the Crusades, the holy wars, the suicide bombings, etc. These people usually thought they were doing "God" a favor as they were raping and killing, knowing their precious indulgences would keep them from being cast into hell (or at least have them end up with 72 virgins or whatever).

So, back then, "God" existed, no question. Now, science is working to disprove the existence of a "God", and AFAIK, that hasn't happened yet. Don't stop trying now!

The issue isn't if we'd kill eachother anyways, we're animals of course we would, the issue is the fairy tales we've allowed to dictate our policies, resources and in many cases fury towards, and in the name of.

Intellectual freedom is important, as long as it doesn't adversely effect society or others in any way. If I decided to start a religion with the belief that a giant yellow and purple troll took a massive dump in another universe, creating a split in the multiverse and expanding as the cosmos which we know, my religion would statistically be just as likely as any out there today. If I managed to convert millions or even billions of mindless sheep, all of a sudden my 'religion' would be a 'credible explanation'.

I'm getting off track though. Currently religion is NOT neutral towards non believers. Religions are tax exempt, beneficiaries of tax dollars, in some Canadian provinces the Catholic School boards are completed funded by tax payers; Our laws and verdicts consider religious beliefs, and groups lobby for 'anti blasphemy' laws. In other parts of the world it is flat out DANGEROUS to NOT believe in a particular fairy tale. How is that OK? I can not and will not respect these beliefs. it is a complete affront to the truth.

And what truth are you referring to?