You have every right to criticize Geller and think she is a jerk off. And she has every right to criticize Islam, to riducle it, to make fun of it, to call Muslims whatever she wantsna dn most especially to draw Mohammed. If "pro-Geller thugs" threatened you for attacking her it would be the unequivocal duty of society to protect you so that your right to expression is not chilled. And the same goes for her. Why is that so difficult to agree with? It seems axiomatic.

I agree with all of this - why do you keep bringing up rights? What's difficult for me is that some people, mostly conservative, seem to believe that if they criticize her or call her a jerk-off, that they are some how siding with terrorism. It's also difficult to accept that many people don't realize how counter-productive she is. Yes, I understand it's just my opinion, but once emotion is taken out of it, I bet most would agree that it is indeed counter-productive to the end goal.

It's YOUR opinion that she's counter productive. Start another thread about her tactics and we can discuss that. This thread is about the penachant of certain people of the left to reflexively equate holding a cartoon contest with the vilest form of hate speech and to be at best ambivalent about expression of this sort.

Why do I speak of rights? Because our system recognizes that rights that cannot be exericsed in safety and without fear are not rights at all.

Why do I speak of rights? Because our system recognizes that rights that cannot be exericsed in safety and without fear are not rights at all.

How do you mean? Is there a safety and fear clause in the constitution?

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?

____________________________________________________________

Your right to express that kind of opinion, but how is it productive?

Because by exposing what I believe is the true underlying sentiments behind these issues, it will help bring the real issues to the table, and get one step closer to a resolution, hopefully. Therefore, I think it can be productive. That's how I see it.

If your point is that it's hypocritical of me to write that way, it sure is. But that describes everybody alive on a daily basis, so it's a moot point. Also, I know that the people on this site aren't violent psychopaths that will drive to my house and kill me and my family. If that were the case, I would never challenge such a person.

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?

____________________________________________________________

Your right to express that kind of opinion, but how is it productive?

Because by exposing what I believe is the true underlying sentiments behind these issues, it will help bring the real issues to the table, and get one step closer to a resolution, hopefully. Therefore, I think it can be productive. That's how I see it.

If your point is that it's hypocritical of me to write that way, it sure is. But that describes everybody alive on a daily basis, so it's a moot point. Also, I know that the people on this site aren't violent psychopaths that will drive to my house and kill me and my family. If that were the case, I would never challenge such a person.

Why do I speak of rights? Because our system recognizes that rights that cannot be exericsed in safety and without fear are not rights at all.

How do you mean? Is there a safety and fear clause in the constitution?

Seriously. Are you familiar with Constitutional jurisprudence in this country? Are you aware of the term "chilling effect"? Are you just trolling? Do you honestly not believe it is the duty of the state to protect free expression by protecting the physical safety of the people engaging in it? I mean this whole thing is so ridiculous. If someone killed the artist who created "Piss Christ" you all would be going nuts and rightfully so.

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?

____________________________________________________________

Your right to express that kind of opinion, but how is it productive?

Because by exposing what I believe is the true underlying sentiments behind these issues, it will help bring the real issues to the table, and get one step closer to a resolution, hopefully. Therefore, I think it can be productive. That's how I see it.

If your point is that it's hypocritical of me to write that way, it sure is. But that describes everybody alive on a daily basis, so it's a moot point. Also, I know that the people on this site aren't violent psychopaths that will drive to my house and kill me and my family. If that were the case, I would never challenge such a person.

So therefore you grant them a veto over your right to express yourself. That is actually how the Nazis rose to prominence. Everyone except the Communists (who were just as violent) was scared to challenge them.

Wrong. If I am discussing a person or group that I know will kill me if I say the wrong thing, I know I can still fully express myself, and criticize the person or group, without intentionally insulting them. That's the difference between me and Geller. Therefore, no veto, and no loss of freedom.

Wrong. If I am discussing a person or group that I know will kill me if I say the wrong thing, I know I can still fully express myself, and criticize the person or group, without intentionally insulting them. That's the difference between me and Geller. Therefore, no veto, and no loss of freedom.

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?

So you will insult people who won't retaliate against you, but not those who might, and that is taking the moral high ground and constitutes your effort to "expose what I believe is the true underlying sentiments behind these issues, it will help bring the real issues to the table, and get one step closer to a resolution, hopefully." That's the difference between you and Geller? Really?

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?

____________________________________________________________

Your right to express that kind of opinion, but how is it productive?

Because by exposing what I believe is the true underlying sentiments behind these issues, it will help bring the real issues to the table, and get one step closer to a resolution, hopefully. Therefore, I think it can be productive. That's how I see it.

If your point is that it's hypocritical of me to write that way, it sure is. But that describes everybody alive on a daily basis, so it's a moot point. Also, I know that the people on this site aren't violent psychopaths that will drive to my house and kill me and my family. If that were the case, I would never challenge such a person.

So therefore you grant them a veto over your right to express yourself. That is actually how the Nazis rose to prominence. Everyone except the Communists (who were just as violent) was scared to challenge them.

You've used the Nazi example several times now in this thread. Do you believe that's where or country is headed, a Nazi Germany-like state run by Islamic fundamentalists? Just how long do you think it will be before the Mullahs are running the United States?

To me, making that comparison is just as ridiculous as comparing Bush or Obama to Hitler.

Why do I speak of rights? Because our system recognizes that rights that cannot be exericsed in safety and without fear are not rights at all.

How do you mean? Is there a safety and fear clause in the constitution?

Seriously. Are you familiar with Constitutional jurisprudence in this country? Are you aware of the term "chilling effect"? Are you just trolling? Do you honestly not believe it is the duty of the state to protect free expression by protecting the physical safety of the people engaging in it? I mean this whole thing is so ridiculous. If someone killed the artist who created "Piss Christ" you all would be going nuts and rightfully so.

I am familiar with those things, but not sure what you mean by "our system recognizes that rights that cannot be exericsed in safety and without fear are not rights at all." Are you just saying that gov't (if that is what you mean by"our system") protects our rights by enforcing the law? If so, I agree. If you are saying that being afraid to walk through a rough and violent neighborhood holding a sign that I know would be offensive to the residents there and would likely result in me being injured or worse means that I don't really have the right to do so, then I would have to disagree...It just means that I under the potential outcome of my lawful actions and I making a choice based on that. Now, if instead of a rough neighborhood we were talking about the steps of the capital building and it was gov't troops I was afraid of, that would be different. But I don't think that's what we've been talking about.

"Do you honestly not believe it is the duty of the state to protect free expression by protecting the physical safety of the people engaging in it?"

It is the duty of the state to uphold the law, which they did in this case when they protected Gellar and shot dead those who wanted to harm her. No idea why you would suggest that I would believe the state should not be doing this. I'm just glad no one else was seriously hurt or killed.

I've been talking about Gellar's actions and whether she was right to do what she did, and have never once argued that she didn't have the right to do it or that the state acted improperly to protect her. And I don't think anyone has suggested that the state should have prevented her from doing what she did. There seem to be a number of different (yet related) issues that keep getting mixed up throughout this thread.

[Edited on 6/16/2015 by gondicar]

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?

____________________________________________________________

Your right to express that kind of opinion, but how is it productive?

Because by exposing what I believe is the true underlying sentiments behind these issues, it will help bring the real issues to the table, and get one step closer to a resolution, hopefully. Therefore, I think it can be productive. That's how I see it.

If your point is that it's hypocritical of me to write that way, it sure is. But that describes everybody alive on a daily basis, so it's a moot point. Also, I know that the people on this site aren't violent psychopaths that will drive to my house and kill me and my family. If that were the case, I would never challenge such a person.

So therefore you grant them a veto over your right to express yourself. That is actually how the Nazis rose to prominence. Everyone except the Communists (who were just as violent) was scared to challenge them.

You've used the Nazi example several times now in this thread. Do you believe that's where or country is headed, a Nazi Germany-like state run by Islamic fundamentalists? Just how long do you think it will be before the Mullahs are running the United States?

To me, making that comparison is just as ridiculous as comparing Bush or Obama to Hitler.

It's not the slightest bit ridiculous and no I don't think we are close to a Nazi like takeover. It is an excellent analogy of what can happen when opposition is shut down by violence. What's amazing to me is how we've seen it happen less than 100 years ago and yet everyone poo poos it. This country is unlikely to accept it. By andlarge Europe (birthplace of Naziism of course) already has.

Why do I speak of rights? Because our system recognizes that rights that cannot be exericsed in safety and without fear are not rights at all.

How do you mean? Is there a safety and fear clause in the constitution?

Seriously. Are you familiar with Constitutional jurisprudence in this country? Are you aware of the term "chilling effect"? Are you just trolling? Do you honestly not believe it is the duty of the state to protect free expression by protecting the physical safety of the people engaging in it? I mean this whole thing is so ridiculous. If someone killed the artist who created "Piss Christ" you all would be going nuts and rightfully so.

I am familiar with those things, but not sure what you mean by "our system recognizes that rights that cannot be exericsed in safety and without fear are not rights at all." Are you just saying that gov't (if that is what you mean by"our system") protects our rights by enforcing the law? If so, I agree. If you are saying that being afraid to walk through a rough and violent neighborhood holding a sign that I know would be offensive to the residents there and would likely result in me being injured or worse means that I don't really have the right to do so, then I would have to disagree...It just means that I under the potential outcome of my lawful actions and I making a choice based on that. Now, if instead of a rough neighborhood we were talking about the steps of the capital building and it was gov't troops I was afraid of, that would be different. But I don't think that's what we've been talking about.

"Do you honestly not believe it is the duty of the state to protect free expression by protecting the physical safety of the people engaging in it?"

It is the duty of the state to uphold the law, which they did in this case when they protected Gellar and shot dead those who wanted to harm her. No idea why you would suggest that I would believe the state should not be doing this. I'm just glad no one else was seriously hurt or killed.

I've been talking about Gellar's actions and whether she was right to do what she did, and have never once argued that she didn't have the right to do it or that the state acted improperly to protect her. And I don't think anyone has suggested that the state should have prevented her from doing what she did. There seem to be a number of different (yet related) issues that keep getting mixed up throughout this thread.

[Edited on 6/16/2015 by gondicar]

I'm nopt the one doing the mixing up. Let's say this. Whether what she did was good or right is not what we are discussing here. Whether what she did is productive towards the challenge of alerting the country to the dangers of radical Islam is open to debate and is not what we are discussing here.

What we are discussing here is the creeping notion, and it is really difficult to deny if you are honest, that she was wrong SOLELY because her words were likely to provoke maniacs to violence. That is unacceptable to a free society.

Why do I speak of rights? Because our system recognizes that rights that cannot be exericsed in safety and without fear are not rights at all.

How do you mean? Is there a safety and fear clause in the constitution?

Seriously. Are you familiar with Constitutional jurisprudence in this country? Are you aware of the term "chilling effect"? Are you just trolling? Do you honestly not believe it is the duty of the state to protect free expression by protecting the physical safety of the people engaging in it? I mean this whole thing is so ridiculous. If someone killed the artist who created "Piss Christ" you all would be going nuts and rightfully so.

I am familiar with those things, but not sure what you mean by "our system recognizes that rights that cannot be exericsed in safety and without fear are not rights at all." Are you just saying that gov't (if that is what you mean by"our system") protects our rights by enforcing the law? If so, I agree. If you are saying that being afraid to walk through a rough and violent neighborhood holding a sign that I know would be offensive to the residents there and would likely result in me being injured or worse means that I don't really have the right to do so, then I would have to disagree...It just means that I under the potential outcome of my lawful actions and I making a choice based on that. Now, if instead of a rough neighborhood we were talking about the steps of the capital building and it was gov't troops I was afraid of, that would be different. But I don't think that's what we've been talking about.

"Do you honestly not believe it is the duty of the state to protect free expression by protecting the physical safety of the people engaging in it?"

It is the duty of the state to uphold the law, which they did in this case when they protected Gellar and shot dead those who wanted to harm her. No idea why you would suggest that I would believe the state should not be doing this. I'm just glad no one else was seriously hurt or killed.

I've been talking about Gellar's actions and whether she was right to do what she did, and have never once argued that she didn't have the right to do it or that the state acted improperly to protect her. And I don't think anyone has suggested that the state should have prevented her from doing what she did. There seem to be a number of different (yet related) issues that keep getting mixed up throughout this thread.

[Edited on 6/16/2015 by gondicar]

I'm nopt the one doing the mixing up. Let's say this. Whether what she did was good or right is not what we are discussing here. Whether what she did is productive towards the challenge of alerting the country to the dangers of radical Islam is open to debate and is not what we are discussing here.

What we are discussing here is the creeping notion, and it is really difficult to deny if you are honest, that she was wrong SOLELY because her words were likely to provoke maniacs to violence. That is unacceptable to a free society.

I think you are the one mixing it up. Sorry.

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?

____________________________________________________________

Your right to express that kind of opinion, but how is it productive?

Because by exposing what I believe is the true underlying sentiments behind these issues, it will help bring the real issues to the table, and get one step closer to a resolution, hopefully. Therefore, I think it can be productive. That's how I see it.

If your point is that it's hypocritical of me to write that way, it sure is. But that describes everybody alive on a daily basis, so it's a moot point. Also, I know that the people on this site aren't violent psychopaths that will drive to my house and kill me and my family. If that were the case, I would never challenge such a person.

So therefore you grant them a veto over your right to express yourself. That is actually how the Nazis rose to prominence. Everyone except the Communists (who were just as violent) was scared to challenge them.

You've used the Nazi example several times now in this thread. Do you believe that's where or country is headed, a Nazi Germany-like state run by Islamic fundamentalists? Just how long do you think it will be before the Mullahs are running the United States?

To me, making that comparison is just as ridiculous as comparing Bush or Obama to Hitler.

It's not the slightest bit ridiculous and no I don't think we are close to a Nazi like takeover. It is an excellent analogy of what can happen when opposition is shut down by violence. What's amazing to me is how we've seen it happen less than 100 years ago and yet everyone poo poos it. This country is unlikely to accept it. By andlarge Europe (birthplace of Naziism of course) already has.

From where I sit it is a ridiculous example and that's why I am poo-pooing it. Sorry.

DougMac, I wouldn't compare what we are doing here to that of Geller, but I'll address the point. if your point is that I'm being hypocritical, then fine. I don't mind that since we are all hypocrites on a daily basis. I admit it. But if you are saying I'm wrong about something, please explain.

[Edited on 6/16/2015 by BoytonBrother]

DougMac, I wouldn't compare what we are doing here to that of Geller, but I'll address the point. if your point is that I'm being hypocritical, then fine. I don't mind that since we are all hypocrites on a daily basis. I admit it. But if you are saying I'm wrong about something, please explain.

[Edited on 6/16/2015 by BoytonBrother]

In my opinion insulting behavior is wrong and counterproductive in any situation and on any level. It seems odd you would call out Geller and those who support her right, as well as yours, to express opinions freely when you admittedly engage in the same behavior she does with one exception; She will engage in insulting behavior even towards those who might retaliate against her while you will only insult those you believe will not retaliate against you.

DougMac, I wouldn't compare what we are doing here to that of Geller, but I'll address the point. if your point is that I'm being hypocritical, then fine. I don't mind that since we are all hypocrites on a daily basis. I admit it. But if you are saying I'm wrong about something, please explain.

[Edited on 6/16/2015 by BoytonBrother]

In my opinion insulting behavior is wrong and counterproductive in any situation and on any level. It seems odd you would call out Geller and those who support her right, as well as yours, to express opinions freely when you admittedly engage in the same behavior she does with one exception; She will engage in insulting behavior even towards those who might retaliate against her while you will only insult those you believe will not retaliate against you.

Good observation. He's not alone.

It seems odd you would call out Geller and those who support her right, as well as yours, to express opinions freely when you admittedly engage in the same behavior she does with one exception; She will engage in insulting behavior even towards those who might retaliate against her while you will only insult those you believe will not retaliate against you.

That's an interesting perspective. But you (and alloak apparently) are failing to recognize perhaps the biggest piece of the puzzle. I only insult those who I believe will not retaliate against me, not because I'm selfishly afraid, but because her target would not only kill her, but everyone else in the room, the cops trying to protect us, all while ruining the lives of dozens upon dozens of loved ones - or they can retaliate against hundreds or thousands in a random building, in a random city. Furthermore, me calling some anonymous folks "p*ssies" on the Allman Brothers fan site, does not describe someone hoping to incite a terrorist attack on American soil. So, I respectfully object to any comparison whatsoever between what I have written here, and what Geller has done.

[Edited on 6/17/2015 by BoytonBrother]

It seems odd you would call out Geller and those who support her right, as well as yours, to express opinions freely when you admittedly engage in the same behavior she does with one exception; She will engage in insulting behavior even towards those who might retaliate against her while you will only insult those you believe will not retaliate against you.

That's an interesting perspective. But you (and alloak apparently) are failing to recognize perhaps the biggest piece of the puzzle. I only insult those who I believe will not retaliate against me, not because I'm selfishly afraid, but because her target would not only kill her, but everyone else in the room, the cops trying to protect us, all while ruining the lives of dozens upon dozens of loved ones - or they can retaliate against hundreds or thousands in a random building, in a random city. Furthermore, me calling some anonymous folks "p*ssies" on the Allman Brothers fan site, does not describe someone hoping to incite a terrorist attack on American soil. So, I respectfully object to any comparison whatsoever between what I have written here, and what Geller has done.

[Edited on 6/17/2015 by BoytonBrother]

"If I am discussing a person or group that I know will kill me if I say the wrong thing, I know I can still fully express myself, and criticize the person or group, without intentionally insulting them. That's the difference between me and Geller."

"If I am discussing a person or group that I know will kill me if I say the wrong thing, I know I can still fully express myself, and criticize the person or group, without intentionally insulting them. That's the difference between me and Geller."

Help me understand. Why don't you differentiate between the people on this forum, and terrorists, when my quote includes "that I know will kill me"?

[Edited on 6/17/2015 by BoytonBrother]

"If I am discussing a person or group that I know will kill me if I say the wrong thing, I know I can still fully express myself, and criticize the person or group, without intentionally insulting them. That's the difference between me and Geller."

Help me understand. Why don't you differentiate between the people on this forum, and terrorists, when my quote includes "that I know will kill me"?

[Edited on 6/17/2015 by BoytonBrother]

I'm basing all of the following on quotes you've made in this forum. You believe insulting people is okay if they won't kill you. You believe that is you taking the moral high ground, even though you agree that is the only difference between yourself and someone like Geller. Along the way you insult everyone on this board that doesn't completely agree with you. You also state you recognize your approach is counterproductive, but you're okay with it. I guess my disagreement is in the acceptable way to treat others in an attempt to engage in productive conversation. In that regard you and people like Geller seem very similar to me.

You believe insulting people is okay if they won't kill you. You believe that is you taking the moral high ground, even though you agree that is the only difference between yourself and someone like Geller.

100% wrong. You forgot "okay if they won't kill you and countless other innocent victims." Then you'd be correct. That's a pretty big difference between me and Geller, but feel free to leave that out.

Along the way you insult everyone on this board that doesn't completely agree with you.

Completely ridiculous. Even the people I debate with wouldn't agree with you on this one.

You also state you recognize your approach is counterproductive, but you're okay with it. I guess my disagreement is in the acceptable way to treat others in an attempt to engage in productive conversation. In that regard you and people like Geller seem very similar to me.

Your narrow focus on a portion of my posts, while ignoring the majority that don't represent your claims, shows a personal disdain for me and my style, which is fine with me. I just wish you weren't so phony, and just came right out and said it instead of wasting my time. Try saying what's really on your mind once in a while, instead of a long trail of passive aggressive retorts. There's no penalty for it.

You believe insulting people is okay if they won't kill you. You believe that is you taking the moral high ground, even though you agree that is the only difference between yourself and someone like Geller.

100% wrong. You forgot "okay if they won't kill you and countless other innocent victims." Then you'd be correct. That's a pretty big difference between me and Geller, but feel free to leave that out.

Along the way you insult everyone on this board that doesn't completely agree with you.

Completely ridiculous. Even the people I debate with wouldn't agree with you on this one.

You also state you recognize your approach is counterproductive, but you're okay with it. I guess my disagreement is in the acceptable way to treat others in an attempt to engage in productive conversation. In that regard you and people like Geller seem very similar to me.

Your narrow focus on a portion of my posts, while ignoring the majority that don't represent your claims, shows a personal disdain for me and my style, which is fine with me. I just wish you weren't so phony, and just came right out and said it instead of wasting my time. Try saying what's really on your mind once in a while, instead of a long trail of passive aggressive retorts. There's no penalty for it.

I said what was on my mind all along. I used nothing but your quotes as my source of information, no conjecture, name calling, etc, as you continue to use in this most recent post. As I said, my disagreement lies in ways to communicate that are actually productive. No problem, there are plenty of people here who are willing and able to engage in productive conversation without all the other stuff.

Then I apologize. I should've considered that some people are more sensitive than others. I'll refrain from saying things like "ridiculous" if we converse in the future. I hope one day you give the same amount of attention to my other posts, as you did with the one or 2 that you saw in this thread.

[Edited on 6/17/2015 by BoytonBrother]