http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/05/03/at-least-2-shot-outside-muhammad-art-exhibit-in-texas/26849897/
Except that this time, these morons targeted a group in Texas. They are also the only ones in the entire incident who died.
Thankfully no one (innocent) was killed, but... fuck, this intentionally poking beehives that is so prevalent in our culture is getting old as fuck real fast.
Why, just because we have the freedom to, do we feel the need to be assholes for the sake of being assholes? It's just pathetic. And if anyone had gotten injured or killed, the blood would be on their hands as well and people here and in our culture would be defending them because "they had the freedom to hit the beehive with a stick".
I think they have every right to hold the exhibit, but I think we should not encourage it and condemn them for being assholes who are putting people's lives at risk just so they can get off on being controversial.
Quite right, Shiranu.
Fuck the first amendment. Let the fanatics win.
After all, they are NEVER responsible for their actions.
No one should expect them to behave like rational human beings.
Call it racism of low expectation.
------------just in case I wasn't clear enough in my first post------------When I say the blood is on their hands "...as well", the as well in that sentence implies that both parties in question have blood on their hands. Perhaps that phrase doesn't mean the same thing in other parts of the world, but I grew up in an area where such a statement implies that both party A and party B have responsibility to be taken. If I am mistaken and the rest of the English speaking world does not use that phrase in the same way, then I apologise now for having used it incorrectly.
If that is the case, my sentence therefor would be, "The extremists quite clearly (would, if they succeeded) had blood on their hands, but the people who would provoke violence for the sake of provocation and controversy also have a stake in the blame game, as they intentionally put other peoples live's at risk just so they can be getting their kicks off of being assholes."
-------------now back to the quote-----------------Quote from: pr126 on May 04, 2015, 02:33:00 AM
Quite right, Shiranu.
Fuck the first amendment. Let the fanatics win.
After all, they are NEVER responsible for their actions.
No one should expect them to behave like rational human beings.
See your reading comprehension is still not quite up to snuff.
I realise you are not American, so I won't hold you to the same standards of having a grasp on what our Constitution and Bill of Rights entail, but nowhere in my statement did I say "fuck the first amendment.". In fact a quite clearly said they have every right to do what they did, which... if I remember my Bill of Rights correctly, which it is entirely possible I do not... falls within agreement of said amendment.
And of course you got the responsibility part wrong as well, seeing as how no one in this thread has says anything of the sort, but given how (willfully if not literally) illiterate you have proven yourself to be... that is hardly surprising at this point.
QuoteCall it racism of low expectation.
Ooooh, the witty stab in the edit. That was a nice touch, I'll give it an 8 out of 10. It's a shame you didn't get a single thing right in your post which took any real bite out of it so I have to downgrade it to a 3.5/10. Still a nice effort, though.
QuoteIn fact a quite clearly said they have every right to do what they did,...
BUT, they should not! Isn't that what you meant?
Those who sacrifice liberty for security, deserve neither. - Benjamin Franklin
BTW, they are not "extremist".
They are fanatical true believers. Ready to kill and die for their cult. (see Quran 9:111)
Quote from: pr126 on May 04, 2015, 03:01:42 AM
BUT, they should not! Isn't that what you meant?
Those who sacrifice liberty for security, deserve neither. - Benjamin Franklin
Correct. Would you like the definition of freedom to help clear up some confusion?
Quote"the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint."
Perhaps freedom of speech?
Quotethe right to express any opinions without censorship or restraint.
So, in what way again does saying that you have the right to say something, even if it is a poor choice, mean I am saying "fuck the first amendment"?
If I say, "You shouldn't tell your wife she is a fat pig who looks like shit"... does that mean I am saying "fuck the first amendment" as well?
If you would like, I will break down each word of Franklin's quote and define them for you, since you seem to not grasp a word he said. Since I have never said they should sacrifice their liberty (and have said they have every right to it and should keep it), exactly what relevance does it have?
Here is a man who wasn't a slave owner and a rich bureaucrat who was tired of paying taxes and started a war over it, someone I have a bit more respect for. His quote is also a bit more relevant to this topic.
QuoteLove is the only force capable of transforming an enemy into friend. - Martin Luther King, Jr.
Or the man who was a key part of stopping one of the most vicious and racist governments in human history...
QuoteIf you want to make peace with your enemy, you have to work with your enemy. Then he becomes your partner. - Nelson Mandela
QuoteLove is the only force capable of transforming an enemy into friend. - Martin Luther King, Jr.
QuoteIf you want to make peace with your enemy, you have to work with your enemy. Then he becomes your partner. - Nelson Mandela
Nice.
If you only knew the basics of Islam, you would realize that it would never work.
If you only knew some history, you would realize that it has not worked in 14 centuries.
Islam is a zero sum ideology. It only accepts a winner or a loser. There cannot be a compromise.
When Islam is weak, it crawls back into it's box. Waits, never gives up.
When it is strong, and the opposition is weak, then - well, look around you.
In case you haven't noticed yet, there is a war in progress.
Quote from: pr126 on May 04, 2015, 03:41:36 AM
Nice.
If you only knew the basics of Islam, you would realize that it would never work.
If you only knew some history, you would realize that it has not worked in 14 centuries.
What a depressing world you must live in. And not-so-funny, since you clearly don't grasp how great of joke your "know your history, it has not worked in 14 centuries" is. I guess you have never heard of the Moorish Caliphate which lived in relative peace with it's conquered Christians. Or the Ottoman Empire. Or the Rashidun Caliph. Or the Abbasid Caliphate, who "we" were at peace with, traded with and who pretty much saved all our knowledge of antiquity in Europe as it was brought there while Europeans were busy burning anything that wasn't Christian. But yes, clearly you hold all the historical knowledge in this conversation... because clearly you knew all this and it just slipped your mind when you said, "it has not worked in 14 centuries".
Well, have fun with that depressing little world you live in. I figure everyone here already has a side they are on in this "debate", if you can call you throwing out wrong information and me pointing out why it is such, so I don't see much point to go on if I am not enjoying myself. And I'm not so... toodaloo till next time!
Oh,and if you would so desire, I can send you a dictionary so that you can look up these words yourself before you make a fool of yourself in the inevitable future thread where you accuse people of being anti-this or anti-that simply because you couldn't grasp what they said.
In 20th century, esp. after it was established that art didn't have to depict nature to be 'beautiful' so 'good' and 'correct' and therefore 'right'; more than that 'beauty' had nothing to do with art, Western Culture developed ways of conveying ideas, criticism or opinions with it. You can create every kind of feeling with art, impose on people, force to build an empathy, you can also practically slap them with something they don't want to see. Art became a voice for pretty much everything you wanted to say. If you want to convey a point of view or deliver a message of criticism you needed to provoke people, more, shock them in accordance to inspire. So what was essentially an artistic objective became a form of speech.
As a result it has worked in the Western World, reached up to a harmless point more less. However, this all happened gradually and has given its fruits ONLY WHEN the Western culture reached an economically superior state, when with that the laws and social contracts developed. Only when people have become individuals this works. We are all individualists guys, don't forget that.
Individualism is not just something that occurs as a result of a culture's socio economical success among other world cultures. It also occurs and develops because that cullture defines itself as the 'ideal culture' and its people as the group of individuals with the 'ideal identity'. A culture that defines itself 'superior' with its race, traditions, history; sees itself as righteous on its acts in every scale. State policy or individual behaviour. Anyone who is not from that 'ideal set of conditions' is deemed to be negated in some form. Like the Middle Eastern or generally Eastern people. So creating a so called "Clash of civilisations" which today turned into another bullshit of so called "Religious Wars".
Now, as we created an 'ideal culture' with 'ideal people', of course we are in need of a threat to them, because otherwise there is no motivation, interest or benefit in being a part of that 'ideal world', is there?
How did Westerners percieve the Middle Easterners, specifically Muslims BEFORE 9/11? What is Orientalism? How it was constructed and used? Is it just a bunch of paintings showing naked concubines of some Sultan?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fVC8EYd_Z_g
What is the biggest weapon? Media. How is the model work? It works on everything. Manifacturing Consent. Controling Public Mind. Why? If you are not controlled, you are a threat to corporate system. It's not some conspiracy or complicated net of affairs. This is the system in the country you live.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHU2AVcK5l8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RO51ahW9JlE
Where do those caricatures of or paintings or depictions of Muhammed and violent reaction fall in that big picture? Just a simple violent attack on some innocent form of criticism and exercising freedom of speech? This is something has started LONG before 9/11 or terrorism of political Islam.
So as far the pathtetic sarcasm attempt of that title goes, YES this shooting has something to do with Islam and that it is those people see ther religion as a channel to strike back at every opportunity of how they have been defined, seen, categorised. And Westerners who are supposedly exercising their right of 'free speech' actually exercising their 'entitlement' and 'superiority' consciously or unconsciously. This is not some simple violent reaction about drawing a prophet's picture. It's far more bigger than that. It's far more older than some Islamic terrorism.
Hatred against Americans and America? Or against Western World? Yeah, there is a huge hatred in the world against Western culture and world. Not just among Muslims. May I ask why wouldn't there be? Could someone give me a reasonable explanation please?
Quote from: pr126 on May 04, 2015, 03:41:36 AM
Nice.
If you only knew the basics of Islam, you would realize that it would never work.
If you only knew some history, you would realize that it has not worked in 14 centuries.
Islam is a zero sum ideology. It only accepts a winner or a loser. There cannot be a compromise.
When Islam is weak, it crawls back into it's box. Waits, never gives up.
When it is strong, and the opposition is weak, then - well, look around you.
In case you haven't noticed yet, there is a war in progress.
Hmmm, why is that familiar? Oh... Godzilla! Have you seen the last one? He was so brave and cute. No wait, Avengers? Iron Man? Oooh wait, were you talking about corporate democracy or international Middle East policies led by the USA? When you implied naked agression, mass annihilation and no compromise; win or lose, for some reason those came up. :think:
Also I am curious what is this has worked in 14th century for Christianity and not for Islam that is related to our age in any terms? What is this secular criticism of some religion in 14th century West?
Oh and hey, how are you? No hugs? You are breaking my heart.
:popcorn:
Quote from: Solomon Zorn on May 04, 2015, 05:21:37 AM
:popcorn:
This is one of those topics that is guaranteed to create a mini shit storm.
:popcorn:
Sorry, Shiranu, but I think you are on the wrong side of this one.
Quote from: ShiranuWhy, just because we have the freedom to, do we feel the need to be assholes for the sake of being assholes? It's just pathetic.
I don't know the motives of the artists involved, or the exhibitor, but
our right to the freedom of speech is irrelevant, unless that speech is offensive. Otherwise why would you need your right to be protected? Offensive speech is exactly what is being protected. And religious fanatics are not exempt, just because "blasphemy" makes them angry.
Quote from: ShiranuAnd if anyone had gotten injured or killed, the blood would be on their hands as well and people here and in our culture would be defending them because "they had the freedom to hit the beehive with a stick".
So if some whacked out Christian decides to off me for my poetry, then by this reasoning, I am partly to blame for my own murder.
Quote from: ShiranuI think they have every right to hold the exhibit, but I think we should not encourage it and condemn them for being assholes who are putting people's lives at risk just so they can get off on being controversial.
I think we should withhold judgement, until actually seeing the exhibit.
Je suis Charlie!
Um what do you mean nothing to do with Islam? No sorry, but it has EVERYTHING to do with the fucking insane idea that religion deserves to be blasphemy free. The west has learned to put up with things like piss Christ in a jar of urine, but don't hand me this crap that Islam is in the same century yet.
I refuse to ignore religion because of well intended politically correct liberals, WHICH I AM myself. No, Islam needs to grow up and only a fool thinks this has nothing to do with insecure brats who read words in an old comic book and get violent over those words.
Do not expect this liberal to play verbally nice and bury my head in the sand.
Quote from: Solomon Zorn on May 04, 2015, 06:08:46 AM
So if some whacked out Christian decides to off me for my poetry, then by this reasoning, I am partly to blame for my own murder.
No. If a Christian killed you for your poetry, his act wouldn't be defind as religious terrorism or extremism. He would be portrayed as some 'mentally ill' person or some 'psycopath' in media, who got his hands on guns and the whole issue would be taken in the light of 'gun issue' and 'what is wrong with gun procedures in this country'; another rat race between pro-guns and others.
May be -just maaay be- because you are an atheist, if this goes out -depending on the channel giving your death news- it could be portrayed as a 'hate crime'.
However, it would have never been defined as an act of Christian extremism or terrorism. Noone would even question the issue along those lines. Somebody got killed by a psycho. Happens everyday, everywhere. Doesn't it?
Quote from: Brian37 on May 04, 2015, 07:32:39 AM
Um what do you mean nothing to do with Islam?
I'm not sure of the intention, but I took the title of the thread as purely sarcasm. Of course it has to do with Islam. Everything from cartooning the Prophet to defending free speech was about Islam. The intolerance of Islam is about Islam. There's not much here that isn't about Islam, and I'll guess that was the intention [of the competition].
No Brian, the OP comment was sarcasm.
It referred to the comments made by the leader of the free world, the POTUS, that Islam has nothing to do with Islam.
You are right, it has everything to do with Islam, but far too many non Muslims would like to give Islam a free pass.
A Muhammad art exhibit in Texas. Boy that has politically correct written all over it.
One will have to come up with a pretty good argument that if I insult stupidity that stupid has a "right" to try to kill me because they are too stupid to insult back.
Quote from: SGOS on May 04, 2015, 07:59:48 AM
...Of course it has to do with Islam. Everything from cartooning the Prophet to defending free speech was about Islam. The intolerance of Islam is about Islam. There's not much here that isn't about Islam, and I'll guess that was the intention [of the competition].
"Of course it has to do with god. Everything from blasphemy to defending free speech is about god. The god's intolerance is about god. There's not much about here that isn't about god and I'll guess that was the intention [of creation]."
(http://image.slidesharecdn.com/awssummittlv2014-07-dataanalytics-part1-backendinfrastructure-140922052832-phpapp02/95/real-time-data-analytics-part-1-backend-infrastructure-2-638.jpg?cb=1411444860)
Quote from: aitm on May 04, 2015, 09:07:06 AM
One will have to come up with a pretty good argument that if I insult stupidity that stupid has a "right" to try to kill me because they are too stupid to insult back.
Who argued anyone has a right to kill anyone to begin with, let alone the stupid that can't insult back?
The rule is that the strongest one always has the 'right' to kill as he pleases, because nobody will be able to stand against him. Like having the best military force and being able to provide global control to kill as you like. It's not about rights. It's about rules. The strongest one makes the rules.
Nope, sorry, I am fucking tired of the crap about "extremism". That well intended separation between left and right does not change that the exact same books are used by both containing the same words in which both left and right come to different conclusions.
No one should be out to force religion out of existence. But the reality is for every kind motif the left can glean out of those ancient comic books, the right and the violent are reading the same books to glean the justifications for their barbarity. SAME FUCKING BOOKS.
The west became civil because society learned to cherry pick holy books and skip the violent parts. To do what those holy books say word for word, one would have to become a monster. No, do not expect me to coddle the insecurities of either the right or the left. They are still the same books both are getting their morality from.
No one is saying get rid of say the likes of Malala or King or empathetic believers. I am saying the left does not help pretending they have the "true" version of their books. They are the same books with the same heros.
If the left can accept that others can be kind outside their label, then they need to consider the empathy is not in that book, but in our species evolution. Holy books are weapons and must be treated as such, they are the same books the left uses that the right and the violent use to justify oppressive laws and violence. There is no such thing as "true" anything.
The "extremists" are the ones taking the books seriously and word for word. The left does not help by ignoring this.
QuoteThe left is not helping by ignoring this
Brian, the left is not ignoring it.
The left is actively encourage it, finance it, and helping it any way they can.
Quote from: drunkenshoe on May 04, 2015, 09:44:18 AM
Who argued anyone has a right to kill anyone to begin with, let alone the stupid that can't insult back?
The rule is that the strongest one always has the 'right' to kill as he pleases, because nobody will be able to stand against him. Like having the best military force and being able to provide global control to kill as you like. It's not about rights. It's about rules. The strongest one makes the rules.
Yep, that does seem to be the way of the world. Who writes the history books? The winners; not the losers. Who makes the rules--as Shoe said--the one with the biggest club. Right now that is the US of A.
Quote from: Shiranu on May 04, 2015, 01:56:03 AM
Thankfully no one (innocent) was killed, but... fuck, this intentionally poking beehives that is so prevalent in our culture is getting old as fuck real fast.
Yeah, I kinda get what you are saying. Why would a sane person rile up a group who think they have the 'answers' and the Truth? And said group has been known to get a little violent in 'defense' of those answers and Truths? A sane person wouldn't..............hmmmmm........wait a minute; maybe it is the sane person who would do that. Why? Because if that particular 'beehive' is left alone it will only grow bigger, gain more queens, and build more hives. Maybe--just maybe--a little blasphemy is what IS called for. Maybe the sane person is the one saying that those 'answers' are not my answers and your Truth is not my Truth--stay out of my life--stay out of my head. I have a much right to be free of that crap as they have of spewing it.
Quote from: Mike Cl on May 04, 2015, 11:13:15 AM
Yep, that does seem to be the way of the world. Who writes the history books? The winners; not the losers. Who makes the rules--as Shoe said--the one with the biggest club. Right now that is the US of A.
But not for long. The USA is in the process of abdicating that role.
Quote from: Brian37 on May 04, 2015, 07:32:39 AM
Um what do you mean nothing to do with Islam?
It's called sarcasm. You should try it sometime.
Quote from: pr126 on May 04, 2015, 11:20:48 AM
But not for long. The USA is in the process of abdicating that role.
I am afraid you are right.
.
.
[/quote]
Quote from: drunkenshoe on May 04, 2015, 09:44:18 AM
The rule is that the strongest one always has the 'right' to kill as he pleases, because nobody will be able to stand against him. Like having the best military force and being able to provide global control to kill as you like. It's not about rights. It's about rules. The strongest one makes the rules.
I fail to see how that means that a dozen or a hundred people can get together and make fun of stupidity and it be suggested they are responsible when the stupid thinks they have the right to kill over it.
Quote from: pr126 on May 04, 2015, 10:47:18 AM
Brian, the left is not ignoring it.
The left is actively encourage it, finance it, and helping it any way they can.
Excuse me, no sorry, Obama did not sink the Titanic. Not even talking about politicians when I say "left" I am talking about the PC left as far as voters. No, the politicians on the right are the ones funding this crap and holding the left hostage. You want this shit to stop? The we need to stop the big business monopoly politics funded by the right that protects the military industrial complex.
The left I am talking about is the well intended person on the street on the issue of word choice who thinks taboos are the way to keep peace. The political economics are being run by banks and Wall Street and big fuel and the Military industry. Blame the right for holding everyone hostage when it comes to that.
Of course the shooting at Charlie Hebdo, and recently in Texas, is perfectly in accordance with Islam.
Following the prophet's example. (Quran 33:21)
Muhammad’s Dead Poets Society (http://www.answering-islam.org/Authors/Arlandson/dead_poets.htm)
Quote from: Mike Cl on May 04, 2015, 11:18:41 AM
Because if that particular 'beehive' is left alone it will only grow bigger, gain more queens, and build more hives. Maybe--just maybe--a little blasphemy is what IS called for. Maybe the sane person is the one saying that those 'answers' are not my answers and your Truth is not my Truth--stay out of my life--stay out of my head. I have a much right to be free of that crap as they have of spewing it.
'Beehive' is not some group of people attacking drawing competitions or news papers for prophet caricatures. It's the Middle East that has been turned upside down, played in every level, made stage for Western power game plays for decades. Beehive has been divided to a dozen beehives some time ago.
This has nothing to do with somebody's truth or answers or sanity or even fucking religion.
Quote from: aitm on May 04, 2015, 12:31:24 PM
.
.
I fail to see how that means that a dozen or a hundred people can get together and make fun of stupidity and it be suggested they are responsible when the stupid thinks they have the right to kill over it.
Quote from: pr126 on May 04, 2015, 08:03:44 AM
No Brian, the OP comment was sarcasm.
It referred to the comments made by the leader of the free world, the POTUS, that Islam has nothing to do with Islam.
You are right, it has everything to do with Islam, but far too many non Muslims would like to give Islam a free pass.
Not all, the lady who blasted Ben Aflack out of Pakistan was a Muslim. Malala is a Muslim, Ayaan is a former Muslim, and there are a growing number of apostates you can find online on FB out of that part of the world who are still in Islam or have left Islam who want that region to get with the secular west.
Now if you want to argue far too much of it is still living in an Islamic Dark Ages, I agree. But to say there are no Muslims at all or former Muslims wanting to get rid of theocracy, you'd be wrong.
My beef is with any well intended liberal who thinks walking on eggshells will solve anything.
Quote from: aitm on May 04, 2015, 12:31:24 PM
.
.
I fail to see how that means that a dozen or a hundred people can get together and make fun of stupidity and it be suggested they are responsible when the stupid thinks they have the right to kill over it.
If you play games with people's land, use it, invade it, fuck with it every way possible, divide and militarize to fuck up with this and that they try to kill your people at every opportunity. American international policies based on invasion and war. Military intervention provides wealth and power to your country. Is it too much for you to imagine that American policies is not the only one which see itself righteous at murder?
In the US, you can shoot someone dead because they tresspassed your property and get away without trial alltogther in some states claiming standing your ground. You understand that I suppose. Now, you invaded an area for nothing, it was known that there was nothing there, and aftermath was millions of dead civilians. And you suggest that these people wouldn't feel a hatred of this level to kill Americans at every opportunity? How is possible that you fail to get that picture and see it as you described it above? Because you are Americans and others are 'stupids'?
QuoteBecause if that particular 'beehive' is left alone it will only grow bigger...
Yeah, here is the problem... there is a difference between leaving alone, confronting and intentionally provoking. This is not constructive confrontation, this is just trying to get a rise out of people. It is the "Targeted at Islam" equivalent of the Westborogh Baptist Church real-life trolling just for the sake of getting a rise. Look at the name of the organization, for christ's sake... the American Freedom Defense Initiative, who is lead by the woman who wrote the book, "The Obama Administration's War on America" and is classified as a hate group by the SPLC and Britain. Is that really the woman you want to be standing with?
And pardon, but do please explain to me how committing an act that is going to offend the majority of Muslims who would otherwise be on your side is at all constructive? If I was to start garnering notoriety for being an asshole towards Christians, starting a hate group towards Christians, and then held an event where I painted a picture of Jesus getting assfucked by a donkey and giving head to Satan... would you still say it was a "smart" choice of freedom of speech, since I was only "aiming" my insult at "radical Christians" like the WBC or those who hate homosexuals? Or would it be a little more obvious in that scenario how unproductive that is?
I'm sorry, but when it comes to Islam it's like all logic is tossed out the window just for a chance to piss them off. And Drunken nailed it when she said it is just a matter of the West carrying on what it feels is a "clash of civilizations". That's all this is at it's heart, it has nothing to do with fixing the problems that exist in Islam and all to do with the fact that we are the entitled and more powerful civilization, so clearly our way is the only way.
Quote from: Shiranu on May 04, 2015, 01:29:31 PM
Look at the name of the organization, for christ's sake.. the American Freedom Defense Initiative who is lead by the woman who wrote the book, "The Obama Administration's War on America" and is classified as a hate group by the SPLC and Britain. Is that really the woman you want to be standing with?
:lol: I need to read about this.
Quote from: drunkenshoe on May 04, 2015, 01:06:43 PM
If you play games with people's land, use it, invade it, fuck with it every way possible, divide and militarize to fuck up with this and that they try to kill your people at every opportunity. American international policies based on invasion and war. Military intervention provides wealth and power to your country. Is it too much for you to imagine that American policies is not the only one which see itself righteous at murder?
In the US, you can shoot someone dead because they tresspassed your property and get away without trial alltogther in some states claiming standing your ground. You understand that I suppose. Now, you invaded an area for nothing, it was known that there was nothing there, and aftermath was millions of dead civilians. And you suggest that these people wouldn't feel a hatred of this level to kill Americans at every opportunity? How is possible that you fail to get that picture and see it as you described it above? Because you are Americans and others are 'stupids'?
oh I see, you're taking this to be an "american" thing and not just that anyone anywhere hasn't the right to make fun of stupid. Got it. Still disagree, I understand the whole american rant, thats fine, but again, what does that have to do with a dozen or...meh whatever.
Quote from: drunkenshoe on May 04, 2015, 12:48:05 PM
'Beehive' is not some group of people attacking drawing competitions or news papers for prophet caricatures. It's the Middle East that has been turned upside down, played in every level, made stage for Western power game plays for decades. Beehive has been divided to a dozen beehives some time ago.
This has nothing to do with somebody's truth or answers or sanity or even fucking religion.
Guess I'm a little dense--could you explain that to me?
The intentions weren't stated in the article. I doubt the shooter thought he had a right to do anything and this was more likely done out of fear or anger and done with irrational decision making. (like a lot of similar things that happen).
Quote from: aitm on May 04, 2015, 01:39:47 PM
oh I see, you're taking this to be an "american" thing and not just that anyone anywhere hasn't the right to make fun of stupid. Got it. Still disagree, I understand the whole american rant, thats fine, but again, what does that have to do with a dozen or...meh whatever.
Oh come on aitm. American rant? Summarising what has happened in the last decades in a paragraph and linking to that extremists attacking at every opportunity is an American rant now?
This is not about mocking anything. If it wasn't the blasphemy thing, it would be something else. I can't believe you are still going on about 'the right to make fun of the stupid'. What do you want? A wiki link to causality principles?
Besides, I take that as an insult. If I went on an some "American rant", it would be a detailed half thread long post, not a small paragraph. :lol:
Quote from: Mike Cl on May 04, 2015, 01:42:01 PM
Guess I'm a little dense--could you explain that to me?
Your post above taking the conflict as if it was between individuals. I said no it isn't. The posts I wrote to aitm talks about the same thing. Please don't make me write again, my eyes burn.
Quote from: drunkenshoe on May 04, 2015, 01:50:45 PM
This is not about mocking anything.
Yes, yes it is. You want to argue that this is all about american imperialism and yada yada, that's fine and dandy. However, I am saying that people should be able to mock,ridicule and laugh at stupid, no matter who they are or where they are. If you are suggesting that modern day turks cannot make jokes at stupid things an armenian might say or do because of the "genocide" you can make that point but I would still disagree.
Quote from: aitm on May 04, 2015, 02:10:47 PM
However, I am saying that people should be able to mock,ridicule and laugh at stupid, no matter who they are or where they are.
Ah, we are not talking about "SHOULD". This is not some survey on how an ideal world would work, aitm. You misunderstood me. Yes, we completely agree on that. However, things doesn't work that way in reality. The reality is what 'american emparialism yada yada' created, doesn't matter how you put it should be. If it wasn't blasphemy, it would be something else. They do NOT need blasphemy to attack, it just provides the best opportunity that's all.
You know what aitm? The way you see this is a very good example how you guys are cut from the world's reality.
QuoteIf you are suggesting that modern day turks cannot make jokes at stupid things an armenian might say or do because of the "genocide" you can make that point but I would still disagree.
No, they are saying horrible stuff. Modern day Turks are like everyone else. They are obnoxious to what they do not like, but they do not like it when it's done to them.
Not the minority of Turks in the country who recognises genocide. I think the most offensive thing I said to an Armenian was that I didn't guess she was one (she was an Armenian American and I was asked to guess) because she lacked the signature hook nose.
From a big picture standpoint, Drunken is right. This shit all dates back to WW1; from broken promises made to Arab leaders to weak leaders that cowtowed to the West to CIA intervention in Iran to overthrow a modern Muslim government, to oil magnates empowering the Saudis, to a whole laundry list of other reasons. Throw in the internal issues based on tribal hatreds dating back centuries to radicalized Islamists being empowered by events to whatever.
you can analyze this shit endlessly. But one bad thing that should have happened and didn't is that the Charlie Hebdo attacks should have been universally condemned by everyone, period. When people like the Pope and pinheads like Huckabee condemn Charlie Hebdo for attacking religion, they went a long way towards justifying the attacks, if only by not outright condemning them. Only by universally condemning every attack against free speech can there be a united front against it. Just wait and see what comes out the mouths of Huckabee and other religious leaders over this event.
My personal big picture view is that the whole thing ultimately works against Islam and religion in general, because people don't like their quiet lives being disturbed by this idiocy. And the religious are continually roiling the pot, and in the end will lose because of it.
Quote from: drunkenshoe on May 04, 2015, 01:06:43 PM
If you play games with people's land, use it, invade it, fuck with it every way possible, divide and militarize to fuck up with this and that they try to kill your people at every opportunity. American international policies based on invasion and war. Military intervention provides wealth and power to your country. Is it too much for you to imagine that American policies is not the only one which see itself righteous at murder?
In the US, you can shoot someone dead because they tresspassed your property and get away without trial alltogther in some states claiming standing your ground. You understand that I suppose. Now, you invaded an area for nothing, it was known that there was nothing there, and aftermath was millions of dead civilians. And you suggest that these people wouldn't feel a hatred of this level to kill Americans at every opportunity? How is possible that you fail to get that picture and see it as you described it above? Because you are Americans and others are 'stupids'?
Agree, in principle, with everything you said. But it has nothing significant to do with this particular act of extremism. The perpetrators were Americans themselves, I believe. One was from Arizona. This was caused by an extreme intolerance of blasphemy. This was caused by religion. This was caused by valuing a holy-proscription, over peoples lives.
I plan on doing a "Where's Waldo" style satire drawing called, "Where's Jesus," to go with my poem, "Hide and Seek." I don't care if someone gets offended by it. They should be offended, because I'm calling them stupid. That has nothing to do with being a culturally isolated American, and everything to do with freedom of expression.
But in my case, I used to
be a Christian, so I have a right to ridicule it. I'm not sure that a contest for non-Muslims to use the image of Mohammed has quite the same integrity, but any good art is is provocative and offensive to someone.
Quote from: Solomon Zorn on May 04, 2015, 02:59:02 PM
Agree, in principle, with everything you said. But it has nothing significant to do with this particular act of extremism. The perpetrators were Americans themselves, I believe. One was from Arizona. This was caused by an extreme intolerance of blasphemy. This was caused by religion. This was caused by valuing a holy-proscription, over peoples lives.
How being born in the USA or 'being an American' changes anything? Do you have any idea how many Eurpoean born white people traveling to fight for various terrorist groups in the Middle East? Starting with ISIS. Young people from normal families. Not street kids, thrown out or abused. Your statement is a good example of being cut out.
Guys, there is not one thing playing itself out seperately from what's going on in the world. Your country does not exist on some different plane of existence free from world issues. It's subjected to the same bullshit going on around the world in every.fucking.thing. From rape to famine, from low wages to homeless people, from bad education to media bullshit, from human trafficking to petty theft.
QuoteI plan on doing a "Where's Waldo" style satire drawing called, "Where's Jesus," to go with my poem, "Hide and Seek." I don't care if someone gets offended by it. They should be offended, because I'm calling them stupid. That has nothing to do with being a culturally isolated American, and everything to do with freedom of expression.
You can call them whatever you like. Or write any poem you like. It's your perception, not your culture that is cut out. Your culture is perfectly in sync with extremists and their actions; they are not just defined that way. It's how you conditioned to percieve it. And yes, you are cut out from reality when you handle this as an issue of freedom of speech. Because it is an unquestioned conviction and expectation comes along with it. 'I'm an American, I have these rights.' Yes, it is a fact that you do. Another fact is that you might get killed for exercising them. And that is nothing different than me or some other person being killed for a similar thing in somewhere in the Middle East. You are in some fucking delusion if you think it is different or a few isolated religious nuts are responsible.
Actually, American freedom of speech is a constructed delusion, but as noone will watch or read what I posted, let's skip it.
What you are doing is exactly what I wrote in the post about your imaginary demise. You are completely avoiding everything that led here that created this people and going out from the other side of the tunnel with an isolated couple of religious fanatics that fell from the sky. You just didn't define them as psyhcopaths. You might as well. Same bullshit.
QuoteBut in my case, I used to be a Christian, so I have a right to ridicule it. I'm not sure that a contest for non-Muslims to use the image of Mohammed has quite the same integrity, but any good art is is provocative and offensive to someone.
You don't have to be an ex-christian to do that. I have never participated in any religion, but technically I have the same right as everyone does in an ideal world.
Quote from: drunkenshoe on May 04, 2015, 04:55:31 AM
Hmmm, why is that familiar? Oh... Godzilla! Have you seen the last one? He was so brave and cute. No wait, Avengers? Iron Man? Oooh wait, were you talking about corporate democracy or international Middle East policies led by the USA? When you implied naked agression, mass annihilation and no compromise; win or lose, for some reason those came up. :think:
Also I am curious what is this has worked in 14th century for Christianity and not for Islam that is related to our age in any terms? What is this secular criticism of some religion in 14th century West?
Oh and hey, how are you? No hugs? You are breaking my heart.
SmOn You are so correct shoe! OOOOOO X Solitary
QuoteGuys, there is not one thing playing itself out seperately from what's going on in the world. Your country does not exist on some different plane of existence free from world issues. It's subjected to the same bullshit going on around the world in every.fucking.thing. From rape to famine, from low wages to homeless people, from bad education to media bullshit, from human trafficking to petty theft.
The fact is this:
no one but the dead guys knows, exactly what motivated these two individuals to go to the art exhibit. So stop being so fucking arrogant with me! I said that
I agree with your assessment in general of US policies aggravating world tensions, but it's an inductive fallacy to assume that an every act of Muslim extremism is caused by US policies abroad. And this specific act of Americans against Americans, is more likely motivated by religion, not politics.
Quote from: Solomon Zorn on May 04, 2015, 04:17:23 PM
The fact is this: no one but the dead guys knows, exactly what motivated these two individuals to go to the art exhibit. So stop being so fucking arrogant with me! I said that I agree with your assessment in general of US policies aggravating world tensions, but it's an inductive fallacy to assume that an every act of Muslim extremism is caused by US policies abroad. And this specific act of Americans against Americans, is more likely motivated by religion, not politics.
I wasn't aware I looked arrogant. I was being sincere. Have you ever thought may be I just 'talk' like this with everyone without looking down on?
Anyway, yes not every act is caused by the same thing. But I don't agree with your point of view.
Every act of terrorism is political in nature. Domestic or international. That's why it is done. Am I wrong, may be. But I am not being arrogant. I was trying to explain something.
Here's something you said earlier that bugged me:
Quote from: drunkenshoe on May 04, 2015, 04:33:03 AM
In 20th century, esp. after it was established that art didn't have to depict nature to be 'beautiful' so 'good' and 'correct' and therefore 'right'; more than that 'beauty' had nothing to do with art, Western Culture developed ways of conveying ideas, criticism or opinions with it. You can create every kind of feeling with art, impose on people, force to build an empathy, you can also practically slap them with something they don't want to see. Art became a voice for pretty much everything you wanted to say. If you want to convey a point of view or deliver a message of criticism you needed to provoke people, more, shock them in accordance to inspire. So what was essentially an artistic objective became a form of speech.
As a result it has worked in the Western World, reached up to a harmless point more less. However, this all happened gradually and has given its fruits ONLY WHEN the Western culture reached an economically superior state, when with that the laws and social contracts developed. Only when people have become individuals this works. We are all individualists guys, don't forget that.
Individualism is not just something that occurs as a result of a culture's socio economical success among other world cultures. It also occurs and develops because that cullture defines itself as the 'ideal culture' and its people as the group of individuals with the 'ideal identity'. A culture that defines itself 'superior' with its race, traditions, history; sees itself as righteous on its acts in every scale. State policy or individual behaviour. Anyone who is not from that 'ideal set of conditions' is deemed to be negated in some form. Like the Middle Eastern or generally Eastern people. So creating a so called "Clash of civilisations" which today turned into another bullshit of so called "Religious Wars".
How does the red follow from the blue? It seems to me like a non-sequitur. Not that our culture doesn't do those things in red, but I don't see that you've made a reasonable connection to individualism.
Quote from: drunkenshoe on May 04, 2015, 02:31:24 PM
They do NOT need blasphemy to attack, it just provides the best opportunity that's all.
The Indians didn't launch attacks on the British and they pretty much fucked them up for several decades. The Vietamese and Algerians didn't have suicide bombers against the French, you don't see the Polish or English fucking with Germany, the Japanese don't have extremist against the chinese or americans. Your opinion that this is merely against "america" due to its past or recent actions, I think, is wrong. It is indeed about THEM being and acting as a religion against infidels and if in america all the better as this is the new recruitment area, the holy grail of the devotee, to get the american to hide amongst themselves and commit the crime for allah. Not to say this attack was that very idea, but it was against a f-ing cartoon show.
All three need to stop dodging religion with words like "race" "ethnic" "culture" "nationality". All three are tribal books RELIGIONS, and the only difference between them are the gang symbols. The only difference between a street gang say Bloods vs Kripts and religion, is that religion has political power. But both are followed by the respective members as a form of group survival.
We have got to stop coddling religion pretending it is special or deserves anything outside the right to make the claim. Ideas however by themselves do not deserve pedestals. RELIGION is the cause and I am tired of people making excuses for any of them.
Quote from: aitm on May 04, 2015, 05:09:26 PM
The Indians didn't launch attacks on the British and they pretty much fucked them up for several decades. The Vietamese and Algerians didn't have suicide bombers against the French, you don't see the Polish or English fucking with Germany, the Japanese don't have extremist against the chinese or americans.
Irish fucked the English well. Kurds worked good here too with suicide bombers. None of it was for allah.
No, it's not just against Americans. It happened in London, Istanbul, Australia, Denmark, Canada...at other islamic or christian countries. America is seen as the main source of harm to the Middle East that's all. Head actor.
Cartoon show is an opportunity. Anyway they can. Direct bombing is ideal, but not easy. These events are better practically and also because it SYMBOLISES how they are seen by the western culture.
QuoteYour opinion that this is merely against "america" due to its past or recent actions, I think, is wrong. It is indeed about THEM being and acting as a religion against infidels and if in america all the better as this is the new recruitment area, the holy grail of the devotee, to get the american to hide amongst themselves and commit the crime for allah.
Yeah it is my opinion. I just thought all of it today. Why? Because I am anti-american. That's it. I looked once at the OP and I linked it to two major figures' works into it, wrapped it with art.
And when you stomp your feet down 'no it is not, it is islam' it just turns that way. Poof!
QuoteNot to say this attack was that very idea, but it was against a f-ing cartoon show.
To attack somewhere to kill people you have never seen in your life, who never harmed you directly or indirectly IS AN ACT OF TERRORISM. And every act of terrorism is political. That's why they kill innocent civilians. That's the whole idea. Two people deciding to do this by themselves or being brainwashed to do it by a specific group doesn't change the crime they committed. And it is not cut out from its political whole. How many of these events you had in the US, 15 years ago? In Europe?
Quote from: Solomon Zorn on May 04, 2015, 04:44:21 PM
Here's something you said earlier that bugged me:
How does the red follow from the blue? It seems to me like a non-sequitur. Not that our culture doesn't do those things in red, but I don't see that you've made a reasonable connection to individualism.
How is that a non-sequitur? If you can't see the link then you don't know anything about the basic differences between Eastern and Western societies and how they see/handle the person/individual.
Oh wait this is arrogant, right?
Oh man, the rage this thread has prompted.
(http://i.imgur.com/vIXaSos.gif)
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on May 04, 2015, 07:30:07 PM
Oh man, the rage this thread has prompted.
(http://i.imgur.com/vIXaSos.gif)
kinda like my sisters underwear after she ran five miles….er……or maybe something completely different….
Quote from: drunkenshoeOh wait this is arrogant, right?
Right! Even though I almost completely agree with you, you continue to insult me.
I just don't see how Individualism (in blue) , "also occurs and develops because" of a lot of exclusive group-think (in red).
Quote from: Solomon Zorn on May 05, 2015, 12:06:37 AM
Right! Even though I almost completely agree with you, you continue to insult me.
I didn't insult you when I wrote the post you described as arrogant. I tried to explain you something I believe you didn't see. And if you call someone arrogant for no apparent reason, it kind of distrups the way they communicate you. Is that a surprise? And no, sarcasm is not an insult.
QuoteI just don't see how Individualism (in blue) , "also occurs and develops because" of a lot of exclusive group-think (in red).
Western civilisation describes itself as the ideal civilisation and its culture as the ideal one.
Individualism is a building block of that ideal culture. (Eastern world doesn't have an individualism in western sense.) And it sees itself as the ideal, because it can afford that individualism. So the western identity is based on that cultural building block. Not just in itself, but also in respect to other cultures. Western social contracts and civil rights are based on that understanding of individualism. Which is high maintenance.
Providing that high maintenance identity is not enough. It's not just about good economics, civil rights and freedom. You need to PRESERVE that identity and in accordance to preserve it you also need to PROMOTE it constantly, while you constantly need to demote other cultural identities. This creates a certain perception among the individuals of this group.
What is that called? Western convictions. Why? Because in that case whatever goes down, whatever changes Westerners see themselves as living in the the ideal in CONTRAST to the others. Control. How? By definition in contrast.
What's the result? Western individual percieves events,facts, affairs, relations international or domestic; everything under this evaluation. They percieve the exact same issues caused by the exact same sociological and anthropological circumstances in their own country completely different than what is going on in the world in others. Politics, Rape, murder, terrorism, religion, famine, economical crisis, law, government, power, classes...anything you can think of.
What's the benefit or profit of this? It's only beneficial and profitable to the fucking STATE. There isn't one good thing about this for people. It's just fucking people with a delusion of so called 'freedom of speech', so called set of liberal rights and freedoms which in fact up for sale who can pay for it. An idea of a nonexistent, inflated understanding of freedom and a dream hanging over people's heads. Selling magical beans. And people are buying those beans at every turn.
And when something goes wrong it is isolated and DISTANCED from the ideal culture and its citizens. Could be anything. Not just religious terrorism. It's always some mental illness or gun issue, some hate crime and fucking psychopath or a stupid who thinks he has a right to kill. There is nothing wrong with the system dictates over their lives and others around the world, the politics followed. It's always the individual. It's the fucking religion. What else can it be? Fuck all the socio-psyhcological, anthropological principles. It's a fucking cartoon.
FYI, I am not upset, angry or in some distress. OR being arrogant or condescending. If you talked to me face to face, that^ would be coming out fast, a bit loud with hand gestures in an excited voice. Mediterranean. Hot blood, not hatred. That is how I talk. I think people who talked to me here would attest to that.
Quote from: aitm on May 04, 2015, 09:24:22 PM
kinda like my sisters underwear after she ran five miles….er……or maybe something completely different….
Really? For 3 years you have struggled with me, scolded me with 'you keep pissing people off and noone reads your posts and whatever you have to say goes poof". Now, I am not 'tough' or 'hostile' enough. Is there a way I can win? :lol:
Especially, with your perception of me as an anti-american middle eastern woman who is having an american rant for kicks. Nice prejudice.
Here is your American terrorist acting with personal religious extremism and free from the aftremath of American international politics.
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/05/04/us/garland-mohammed-drawing-contest-shooting/
QuoteOne suspect, identified as Elton Simpson by a federal law enforcement source, linked himself to ISIS in a tweet posted just before the attack.
He also was no stranger to federal investigators. In 2011, he was convicted of making a false statement involving international and domestic terrorism.
"If there is no check on the freedom of your speech, then let your hearts be open to the freedom of our actions," tweeted the propagandist, who was identified by two American groups that monitor jihadi websites as Junaid Hussain, a British ISIS fighter in Syria who goes by the name Abu Hussein al Britani.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/05/04/us-usa-shooting-texas-idUSKBN0NP01G20150504
Quote(Reuters) - Federal agents for years monitored one of the two gunmen who were shot dead after opening fire with assault rifles at a heavily guarded Texas exhibit of caricatures of the Prophet Mohammad.
Two government sources who asked not to be named said the shooters were roommates Elton Simpson and Nadir Soofi, of Phoenix. Court documents show that Simpson had been under surveillance since 2006 and was convicted in 2011 of lying to FBI agents over his desire to join violent jihad in Somalia.
QuoteIndividualism is a building block of that ideal
I see what you are saying, now that you have clarified. You meant that our notion of the ideal society, resulted from Individualism - not the reverse, as you
had stated originally. To some extent the superior mindset is true of many Americans, but your contention that it is the result of individualism is still a long stretch.
I got into this discussion, to refute the idea, that Shiranu put forth, that artists who portray Mohammed are in any way responsible for the violent reactions of Muslims to their work. Is it your opinion that they are?
QuoteYour statement is a good example of being cut out.
QuoteIt's your perception, not your culture that is cut out.
QuoteYou are in some fucking delusion if you think it is different or a few isolated religious nuts are responsible.
QuoteIf you can't see the link then you don't know anything about the basic differences between Eastern and Western societies and how they see/handle the person/individual.
These statements are arrogant, condescending, an unnecessarily insulting. But I'll defend your individual right to say them.
Quote from: Solomon Zorn on May 05, 2015, 07:14:22 AM
I see what you are saying, now that you have clarified. You meant that our notion of the ideal society, resulted from Individualism - not the reverse, as you had stated originally. To some extent the superior mindset is true of many Americans, but your contention that it is the result of individualism is still a long stretch.
I didn't say it is the result of individualism. I said this:
QuoteYou need to PRESERVE that identity and in accordance to preserve it you also need to PROMOTE it constantly, while you constantly need to demote other cultural identities. This creates a certain perception among the individuals of this group.
Furthermore, here I am talking about the application of these concepts in a negative way. They are organic concepts used very easily as a political tool. Individualism being the building block of Western identity doesn't change the fact that it comes and forth, gets shaped over and over again and even change when a recognition of a new trait becomes beneficial to the state. (Gay marriage and legalisation of weed are good examples for the last decade)The link of individualism to our conversation as a starting point, doesn't exempt it from being some sort of an agent working independently in this dynamic.
QuoteI got into this discussion, to refute the idea, that Shiranu put forth, that artists who portray Mohammed are in any way responsible for the violent reactions of Muslims to their work. Is it your opinion that they are?
No, they are not. However, it is as much a 'freedom of speech issue' as the White Christians' claim that gay marriage 'threats' their 'freedom of religion' in the US is a 'freedom of religion issue'.
I tried to give a whole picture as much as I can. Tried to use some material to support it, to put in some context why I thought it's much bigger than that.
QuoteThese statements are arrogant, condescending, an unnecessarily insulting. But I'll defend your individual right to say them.
No, they are not. They are simple observations from the material you provided me about your perception and directly linked to what I was explaining to you. Also when I am talking about basic concepts and their relations like 'individualism' and 'identity', usually -like everyone else- I naturally think it's obvious. After all, we are not talking based on some home cooked definitions of those concepts. But yes, I snapped at you after you called me arrogant.
Think about my position in this forum. I'm a foreigner. I have walked the half of the road, trying to explain something to you in a language which is foriegn to me. And when I am saying something in an assertive manner, coming to a conclusion with what you gave to me and say 'you are wrong, because your perception is cut out' you automatically think I am being arrogant. Think about that. Be honest to yourself and observe what do you think when a Westerner, particularly a male 'talks' like that in a heated discussion. However, I don't think your reaction is conscious, I should add that.
Firstly, I feel I should clarify one of your quotes, by adding the previous paragraph:
QuoteAfter the shooting, an ISIS propagandist that Simpson had earlier asked his readers to follow tweeted, "Allahu Akbar!!!! 2 of our brothers just opened fire" at the Texas event.
"If there is no check on the freedom of your speech, then let your hearts be open to the freedom of our actions," tweeted the propagandist, who was identified by two American groups that monitor jihadi websites as Junaid Hussain, a British ISIS fighter in Syria who goes by the name Abu Hussein al Britani.
You made it sound like Simpson had been identified as the propagandist.
That being cleared up, let's discuss American extremists.
QuoteOne suspect, identified as Elton Simpson by a federal law enforcement source, linked himself to ISIS in a tweet posted just before the attack.
What does the first letter in ISIS stand for?
Islamic. And that is what attracts American Muslims. They may be Muslim,
but they are still American, and probably have little grasp of, or concern about international problems. They are all about the Holy Jihad.
QuoteMoments before the shootout, Simpson posted an ominous tweet with the hashtag #texasattack: "May Allah accept us as mujahideen."
So we have, in his own words, his intention to serve Allah with this attack. Clearly a
religious motive.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/05/us/texas-shooting-gunmen/
Quote from: drunkenshoe on May 05, 2015, 06:10:08 AM
Really? For 3 years you have struggled with me, scolded me with 'you keep pissing people off and noone reads your posts and whatever you have to say goes poof". Now, I am not 'tough' or 'hostile' enough. Is there a way I can win? :lol:
Especially, with your perception of me as an anti-american middle eastern woman who is having an american rant for kicks. Nice prejudice.
You assumed this was directed at you, not at all, not even in my thoughts, not even remotely, not even...well it was not. So.....
QuoteNo, they are not. However, it is as much a 'freedom of speech issue' as the White Christians' claim that gay marriage 'threats' their 'freedom of religion' in the US is a 'freedom of religion issue'.
Not true. It is all about the freedom to say what you think. Especially when it's offensive.
QuoteAnd when I am saying something in an assertive manner, coming to a conclusion with what you gave to me and say 'you are wrong, because your perception is cut out' you automatically think I am being arrogant. Think about that. Be honest to yourself and observe what do you think when a Westerner, particularly a male 'talks' like that in a heated discussion. However, I don't think your reaction is conscious, I should add that.
Don't even try that. I didn't even know you were a woman, when I said that. In fact I wasn't sure if you were foreign to the US, precisely because your English is so good..
How is saying, “your perception is cut out,†not condescending? However, I don't think your superiority is conscious, I should add that.
Don't you find it odd that the jihadist after each murder, atrocity, rape, slave taking etc. are categorically stating that their deeds were inspired by Islam, even quoting the relevant Quran verses to justify that their deeds are indeed religiously motivated.
Immediately our elected leaders and the media are publicly contradicting the perpetrators, saying that their actions have nothing to do with Islam.
They are not "real" Muslims, and do not represent Islam.
Why is that? Why defend the ideology that inspired the atrocities?
When anyone reads the freely available Islamic scriptures knows that the jihadist in fact do follow Islam and its teachings as it is written.
Quote from: Solomon Zorn on May 05, 2015, 08:33:28 AM
Firstly, I feel I should clarify one of your quotes, by adding the previous paragraph: You made it sound like Simpson had been identified as the propagandist.
I didn't write those. They are taken from the sites I gave you.
QuoteThat being cleared up, let's discuss American extremists.What does the first letter in ISIS stand for? Islamic. And that is what attracts American Muslims. They may be Muslim, but they are still American, and probably have little grasp of, or concern about international problems. They are all about the Holy Jihad.So we have, in his own words, his intention to serve Allah with this attack. Clearly a religious motive.
I am not going to repeat the same things. I don't agree with this. You are doing the exact same thing I told you in your imaginary demise post. Most of you are. And it sounds like believers' resistence to idea of evolution. You keep saying 'god created us, period, because there is no other possibility' without considering a mountain of countless factors and dynamics at work, researches made on it, doesn't matter how much it is explained to you. The reason is your perception. None of it goes through it and you think, the it must be wrong. You don't even consider them. You completely distance it the culture you live in and strip the issue from human condition and anything related to that, reduce it to some personal fanatism. And treat it like an isolated anomaly. It's not.
Religion and personal fanatism is not an explanation for a white christian european born young men and women from middle class families leaving their home to fight for ISIS. A white American doesn't have to have a 'concern' about international policies to experience a radical shift in his identity.
People do NOT suddenly become murderous nuts of a religion of an opposite culture which is constantly demoted, humiliated, looked down on, condemned in the society they were born into while their own is a promoted identity. These people are not from one area of the world. They are from Europe and USA. And no you cannot get out from this by 'it's for the Holy Jihad'. It's barren.
Anyway, I'm tired of this. We clearly don't agree. Then we'll agree to disagree. It's an impass. I need to work and I also need to eat. I'm :sad2:starving, I have been working since the wee hours, my eyes are burning.
Quote from: aitm on May 05, 2015, 09:05:32 AM
You assumed this was directed at you, not at all, not even in my thoughts, not even remotely, not even...well it was not. So.....
OK. I love you too. FOOOOOOOOD! Can't you feed me from there?
Quote from: Solomon Zorn on May 05, 2015, 09:12:27 AM
Not true. It is all about the freedom to say what you think. Especially when it's offensive.
Don't even try that. I didn't even know you were a woman, when I said that. In fact I wasn't sure if you were foreign to the US, precisely because your English is so good..
How is saying, “your perception is cut out,†not condescending? However, I don't think your superiority is conscious, I should add that.
I don't live in the US. I live in Turkey. I have never lived anywhere other than Turkey. I have visited the US and Europe for short times. Apparently my English is not good enough, you keep thinking I am insulting you. :sad2:
Anyway, let's agree to disagree. I am really tired of this.
Yeah, we're just going in circles. I was about to suggest we wrap it up, as well. No hard feelings. Have a good day! :biggrin2:
Quote from: Shiranu on May 04, 2015, 01:56:03 AM
Thankfully no one (innocent) was killed, but... fuck, this intentionally poking beehives that is so prevalent in our culture is getting old as fuck real fast.
Why, just because we have the freedom to, do we feel the need to be assholes for the sake of being assholes? It's just pathetic. And if anyone had gotten injured or killed, the blood would be on their hands as well and people here and in our culture would be defending them because "they had the freedom to hit the beehive with a stick".
I think they have every right to hold the exhibit, but I think we should not encourage it and condemn them for being assholes who are putting people's lives at risk just so they can get off on being controversial.
If it was Christian terrorists attacking a pro-abortion rally no one would be blaming the victims for "being too controversial". This politically correct appeasement needs to go to hell.
(http://iranpoliticsclub.net/cartoons/mohammed/images/Offensive%20Toon_jpg.jpg)
Quote from: Ace101 on May 10, 2015, 08:31:00 PM
If it was Christian terrorists attacking a pro-abortion rally no one would be blaming the victims for "being too controversial". This politically correct appeasement needs to go to hell.
(http://iranpoliticsclub.net/cartoons/mohammed/images/Offensive%20Toon_jpg.jpg)
Yes, because pro-abortion rallies are totally the same as holding an "art" exhibit as a "fuck you" to the other guy.
Totally the same.
Yep.
Also, nice comic: "They are doing bad things, so we should too!"
Quote from: Shiranu on May 10, 2015, 08:49:47 PM
Yes, because pro-abortion rallies are totally the same as holding an "art" exhibit as a "fuck you" to the other guy.
Totally the same.
Yep.
Also, nice comic: "They are doing bad things, so we should too!"
How is it "bad" anymore than this:
(http://i.ytimg.com/vi/q3rLof2cnzg/hqdefault.jpg)
The only difference is that Christians aren't plotting to murder people for poking fun at their religion - but if they were you'd and sympathize with the Christian terrorists and blame the victims no doubt.
Quote from: Ace101 on May 10, 2015, 09:41:01 PM
How is it "bad" anymore than this:
(http://i.ytimg.com/vi/q3rLof2cnzg/hqdefault.jpg)
The only difference is that Christians aren't plotting to murder people for poking fun at their religion - but if they were you'd and sympathize with the Christian terrorists and blame the victims no doubt.
:roll:
It takes a special type of stupid to be that intentionally dense.
Also, nice attempt at throwing personal insults at me, especially when they run completely contrary to anything I said in this thread. At least previous attempts were witty, I give this one a 1/15 for effort.
Whatever happened to "Je suis Charlie"?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKerbOi_mrI
Gotta see this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=245&v=X_kuC35F06E