Ok fine. So when I start my "F Judaism" shirt, and encourage all of my nazi friends to gather around and worship Hitler, and protest outside of synagogues, blaming the Jews for all the worlds problems, I hope you will support us for our "freedom of expression", since we're not physically harming anyone.
Let me know when you do this!
Not offensive. It was a warning, wasn't it? Duck, Islam!
Yeah, that's the ticket! 😛
Ok fine. So when I start my "F Judaism" shirt, and encourage all of my nazi friends to gather around and worship Hitler, and protest outside of synagogues, blaming the Jews for all the worlds problems, I hope you will support us for our "freedom of expression", since we're not physically harming anyone.
____________________________________________
Let me know when you do this!
Why?
The F' The Police shirt is far more popular in some neighborhoods right now.
It is easy to spot one. Just listen for the gun shot.
That's an extremely interesting assortment of links there. I wonder how much of that Dawkins piece Doug agrees with.
I like the one where it takes the Obama Administration to task for not condemning that particular display...which was originally displayed via Federal funding...during the H.W. Bush Administration.
Good stuff.
I purposely listed the Dawkins piece to show that it is not only the right that is against the favoritism to Islam. I happen to disagree with Dawkins on a lot. His point stands. There is a disgusting double standard and it makes little or no sense.
Just a simple Google search reveals the truth. Of course I don't need to research it. I lived through it and remember those controversies well. So I guess you are the liar and the hypocrite who sees just what you want to see to support your world view. Reality has nothing to do with it.
Your saying now that because Geller wasn't funded by liberals liberals don't support her right to free speech?
You Lie!
You twisted everything to make all this match up with your desire to wipe out all Palestinians and all Muslims.
I get it. You support Geller's right to be provocative. So do I. I just realize that, in her case, being provocative is the same as being an a$$hole.
Now you are becoming unhinged. Not one thing you say above makes any sense. But I support your freedom to say it anyway.
You know what? Being told we shouldn't our can't do this makes Americans want to do it more. It's funny how being provacative (like dipping Jesus in Urine or excrement) is considered high art to so many on the left until it's Islam that is the subject of it. I think not being intimidated by fear of violence is in and of itself an excellent reason to do something in this country which supposedly treasures free expression.
Ok fine. So when I start my "F Judaism" shirt, and encourage all of my nazi friends to gather around and worship Hitler, and protest outside of synagogues, blaming the Jews for all the worlds problems, I hope you will support us for our "freedom of expression", since we're not physically harming anyone. If it's anti-Jew, it's bigotry......if it's anti-Muslim, it's freedom of expression. Right.
Well if it came down to deciding whether the government should stop you or not I would have ti reluctantly support you. But then we are not talking about wearing a shirt that says "F Islam" are we? We are talking about the fact that to Muslims and their apologists there is no distinction between wearing a shirt that says "F Islam" and satarizing or otherwise ritiquing Islam. They are one and the same. That is intolerable and unacceptable. Of course I condemn anyone that gratuitously insults anyone else whether it's here on this board or in the real world.
Yet Geller is gratuitously insulting Muslims and you praise her.
New rule: if you strap on a gun to go shout at someone else's church, you don't get to claim that your religious freedoms are under attack.
Bingo!
Imagine the outcry if a few hundred gun-toting Muslims gathered outside a church in Phoenix or any other major US city to protest Christianity dressed in shirts that said "F*ck Christianity!" on them.
I doubt there would be much outcry, probably no exchange of gunfire. At this point maybe a yawn or two.
New rule: if you strap on a gun to go shout at someone else's church, you don't get to claim that your religious freedoms are under attack.
Bingo!
Imagine the outcry if a few hundred gun-toting Muslims gathered outside a church in Phoenix or any other major US city to protest Christianity dressed in shirts that said "F*ck Christianity!" on them.
I doubt there would be much outcry, probably no exchange of gunfire. At this point maybe a yawn or two.
Considering the Muslim phobia in this country I am guessing a local SWAT Team would be called in an eye blink in that case and the gun toting Muslim's sent to Guantanamo as enemy combatants. But that is just me.
Ok fine. So when I start my "F Judaism" shirt, and encourage all of my nazi friends to gather around and worship Hitler, and protest outside of synagogues, blaming the Jews for all the worlds problems, I hope you will support us for our "freedom of expression", since we're not physically harming anyone.
____________________________________________
Let me know when you do this!
Why?
Why?... Because I think your statement was asinine in that you would never do it.
New rule: if you strap on a gun to go shout at someone else's church, you don't get to claim that your religious freedoms are under attack.
Bingo!
Imagine the outcry if a few hundred gun-toting Muslims gathered outside a church in Phoenix or any other major US city to protest Christianity dressed in shirts that said "F*ck Christianity!" on them.
I doubt there would be much outcry, probably no exchange of gunfire. At this point maybe a yawn or two.
I don't know what you are smoking, but I want some!!
Yet Geller is gratuitously insulting Muslims and you praise her.
First of all I am not praising her. Second of all, I don't see her as gratutitously insulting Muslims. I see her as harshly comdemning what she sees as bad or evil and what she sees as its encorachment on Western civilization. That is not gratutitously insulting Muslims. Does she have some bigots who show up at her events and do this? Obviously yes. Is that her purpose? Definitely not. Anyone who is willing to have the courage to push back against this political correct protection of Islam in this country deserves some credit. I don't expect you to either see or get that.
Yet Geller is gratuitously insulting Muslims and you praise her.
First of all I am not praising her. Second of all, I don't see her as gratutitously insulting Muslims. I see her as harshly comdemning what she sees as bad or evil and what she sees as its encorachment on Western civilization. That is not gratutitously insulting Muslims. Does she have some bigots who show up at her events and do this? Obviously yes. Is that her purpose? Definitely not. Anyone who is willing to have the courage to push back against this political correct protection of Islam in this country deserves some credit. I don't expect you to either see or get that.
Alrighty then.
First of all I am not praising her. Second of all, I don't see her as gratutitously insulting Muslims. I see her as harshly condemning what she sees as bad or evil and what she sees as its encorachment on Western civilization. That is not gratuitously insulting Muslims. Does she have some bigots who show up at her events and do this? Obviously yes. Is that her purpose? Definitely not. Anyone who is willing to have the courage to push back against this political correct protection of Islam in this country deserves some credit.
Right on.
I just listened to an interview on the radio with Pam Geller. She said, "they are coming after me because of what I say, and they want to come after everyone. ".
Wrong. Not everyone.
And she promises many more events in the near future. I pray for the cops and their families who must deal with the issue.
you are expecting violence? why?
you are expecting violence? why?
Pam Keller expected violence, at least that's what I heard her say in an interview, and lo and behold violence happened.
you are expecting violence? why?
Pam Keller expected violence, at least that's what I heard her say in an interview, and lo and behold violence happened.
So, the mere threat of violence is enough to quell free speech?
you are expecting violence? why?
Pam Keller expected violence, at least that's what I heard her say in an interview, and lo and behold violence happened.
So, the mere threat of violence is enough to quell free speech?
Who said anything about quelling free speech? As has been pointed out countless times in this thread, no one here, not one single person as far as I can tell, has challenged her CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to say whatever she wants and organize whatever event she wants, within the bounds of the law. That is not in question here.
My point is that, by her own admission, she knowingly put the well being of other people, including law enforcement, bystanders and others in the community where the event took place, in danger in order to exercise her free speech rights. That is something I do have an issue with and I will continue to criticize her for, even though she was within her constitutional rights.
Clearly this is not a cut-and-dried issue, but I would ask you this: do you believe that rights come with responsibilities, whether they be legal or moral or ethical? I do. I also believe that freedom without responsibility is just anarchy. Along with the right to free speech comes a responsibility to exercise that right in way that does not endanger others. I think that most people understand this, and the fact that Islam is at the center of this particular incident clouds the issue significantly.
the fact that Islam is at the center of this particular incident clouds the issue significantly.
So, the mere threat of violence from Muslim extremists is enough to quell free speech?
the fact that Islam is at the center of this particular incident clouds the issue significantly.
So, the mere threat of violence from Muslim extremists is enough to quell free speech?
Obviously not.
the fact that Islam is at the center of this particular incident clouds the issue significantly.
So, the mere threat of violence from Muslim extremists is enough to quell free speech?
Do you believe that rights come with responsibilities, whether they be legal or moral or ethical?
If it's anti white, jew, or Christian, it's bigotry and ignorance. When it's anti-Muslim, it's freedom of expression.
It's sad that many here don't have the courage of their convictions about their anti-Muslim feelings, and choose to instead hide behind their "freedom of expression". I'm not anti-gay, I just believe in the Bible. I'm not anti-Muslim, I just believe in freedom of expression - please. Stop with the b.s., stop being a bunch of p*ssies. Stop hiding.
Will any of the geller supporters have the courage to admit they simply don't like Muslims? Will any of the traditional marriage supporters admit to being bigoted towards gays? Or will they hide behind freedoms of expression and religion?
Once again, nobody here has supported what Geller has said, only her right to say it. Some, like Doug R, have praised her for expressing her opinions in the face of possible violent retaliation for expressing them and the type of criticism seen here. That criticism revolves around this sentiment:
"My point is that, by her own admission, she knowingly put the well being of other people, including law enforcement, bystanders and others in the community where the event took place, in danger in order to exercise her free speech rights. That is something I do have an issue with and I will continue to criticize her for, even though she was within her constitutional rights."
This sentiment hangs on the idea that Geller is responsible for the actions of others even though "As has been pointed out countless times in this thread, no one here, not one single person as far as I can tell, has challenged her CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to say whatever she wants and organize whatever event she wants, within the bounds of the law. That is not in question here." We are all responsible for our own actions. The idea floated here is on a par with not drawing a picture of the playground bully because he will beat you up if you do, and then holding the person drawing the picture responsible for the actions of the bully. Makes no sense to me. One can call me whatever one wants for holding the beliefs I do, other's opinion of me is none of my business and in my mind says much more about them than it does about me. Just because one throws derogatory labels at me for not agreeing with them is no reason to relinquish my right to hold those opinions or express them appropriately.
Once again, nobody here has supported what Geller has said, only her right to say it. Some, like Doug R, have praised her for expressing her opinions in the face of possible violent retaliation for expressing them and the type of criticism seen here. That criticism revolves around this sentiment:
"My point is that, by her own admission, she knowingly put the well being of other people, including law enforcement, bystanders and others in the community where the event took place, in danger in order to exercise her free speech rights. That is something I do have an issue with and I will continue to criticize her for, even though she was within her constitutional rights."
This sentiment hangs on the idea that Geller is responsible for the actions of others even though "As has been pointed out countless times in this thread, no one here, not one single person as far as I can tell, has challenged her CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to say whatever she wants and organize whatever event she wants, within the bounds of the law. That is not in question here." We are all responsible for our own actions. The idea floated here is on a par with not drawing a picture of the playground bully because he will beat you up if you do, and then holding the person drawing the picture responsible for the actions of the bully. Makes no sense to me. One can call me whatever one wants for holding the beliefs I do, other's opinion of me is none of my business and in my mind says much more about them than it does about me. Just because one throws derogatory labels at me for not agreeing with them is no reason to relinquish my right to hold those opinions or express them appropriately.
While I appreciate the point you are making, for me your analogy isn't a good fit for a couple of reasons. You said "then holding the person drawing the picture responsible for the actions of the bully", but that is not what anyone, or at least I, have done. The terrorists were responsible for their own actions and now they are dead, good riddance. I also think your analogy would work better if you said that the picture was not of the bully, but of the bully's mother engaged in an unnatural sex act, or something equally as provocative and done with the intent of provoking the bully into a violent response, or at least with the understanding that a violent response was the likely outcome. If the the bully responds with violence as expected, he should absolutely be held responsible for his actions. But the person who intentionally provoked him also bears responsibility as well...not for the bully's actions, but for his own.
This analogy might not be perfect, but I'll try it anyway...if someone yells "fire" in a crowded theater when there is no fire, with the intent of creating a stampede, and during the ensuing stampede someone punches someone else who isn't moving fast enough and the punch is so that it knocks them out and gives them a concussion, the person who threw the punch should be held responsible. My point is that the person who yelled fire also should be held responsible for his actions as well.
Remember the big brawl between rival biker gangs in Waco a few weeks ago? Suppose that all started because a member of one biker gang stood up in the middle of the bar said something derogatory about the mothers of the members of the other biker gang, knowing that it would provoke a violent reaction. Would the person who stood up and said that bear ANY responsibility for what ensued, in your opinion?
Maybe what we are debating is more semantics than anything, but what I have a hard time swallowing is the "either/or" argument that many seem to be making on this, i.e. either you support Geller or you are against free speech. Obviously I don't buy that argument.
Maybe what we are debating is more semantics than anything, but what I have a hard time swallowing is the "either/or" argument that many seem to be making on this, i.e. either you support Geller or you are against free speech. Obviously I don't buy that argument.
Neither do I, but I do believe Geller is responsible for her actions alone. This:
" I also think your analogy would work better if you said that the picture was not of the bully, but of the bully's mother engaged in an unnatural sex act, or something equally as provocative and done with the intent of provoking the bully into a violent response, or at least with the understanding that a violent response was the likely outcome. If the the bully responds with violence as expected, he should absolutely be held responsible for his actions. But the person who intentionally provoked him also bears responsibility as well...not for the bully's actions, but for his own.
The violence belongs solely to the perpetrator of the violence. The person drawing the picture, no matter how vile, is in no way responsible for the actions of the person perpetrating the violence. In no way. The "she made me do it" victim orientation to the situation does not hold any water, even if it is "watered down" (sorry, couldn't resist!) with "well, she only kinda made me do it." I don't support Geller's actions or rhetoric in any way and believe it is counter productive, but I do agree she has the absolute right to do what she s doing, as do you. I think we both also agree that the perpetrators of the violence have no right or justification for their violent response. Where we seem to differ is in holding Geller somehow responsible because she correctly surmised that violence would be the response. I do not hold her responsible for the actions of the others even in that case.
All that said, I continue to appreciate your civil discussion of issues on this board. 
I believe intelligent, caring, and responsible people can come to different conclusions and hold different opinions even while looking at the same information.
Ruby Ridge and Operation "Showtime" in Waco provoked Tim McVeigh. Should the US Government be held responsible for what he did?
Ruby Ridge and Operation "Showtime" in Waco provoked Tim McVeigh. Should the US Government be held responsible for what he did?
The government should be held responsible for its own actions, just as Tim McVeigh was held responsible for his.
That said, do you really think those situations are analogous to what we are talking about here?
[Edited on 6/5/2015 by gondicar]
