Men killed outside Art Exhibition in Dallas

[BruceVC]

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/05/gunmen-killed-anti-islam-exhibition-150504020750642.html

 

So the organiser of this event Pamela Geller has been known to make controversial and anti-Islamic comments and has been  behind this art exhibition known as the "Muhammad Art Exhibit" because it displays images of the Prophet Muhammad which is considered blasphemy by Muslims, in there religion you don't show images of the Prophet. You can see some of the images below from the exhibition  ( some I find offensive and I'm not even religious )

 

http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2015/05/02/sold-out-may-3rd-muhammad-art-exhibit-and-contest-in-garland-texas-photos/

 

 

So here is my question, we know these types of events are legal in the USA despite being offensive to most Muslims...so why have them? Do we balance the right to freedom of expression against the safety of people and say " you are welcome to arrange this art exhibition but you are at risk and the Police cannot guarantee to protect you " 

 

Because apparently these attackers had a  bomb as well and could have created real havoc..and for what? Just so someone can have some really controversial art show?

 

So I'm not sure on this one in the sense " is it really worth having these types of events " knowing the amount of manpower that is now needed just to keep the premises  safe ? 

Edited May 4, 2015 by BruceVC

[Darkpriest]

You are entering a very muddy ground with this one.

 

For example some more orthodox catholics find public gay parades offensive. Some others find the misuse of the cross and christ offensive etc. The thing is that you cannot make exceptions for one religion and its symbols and beliefs (in this case) and exclude the from the freedom of artistic expression even if controvensial as long as it is not a "hate speech". just because showing some bad taste in creation is aimed at controversy in demographics that has high probability to bomb you it should not prevent the artist from expressing his art and showing to the world how "progresively" retarded he or she is... otherwise other religion will also want more power over the forms of expression.

 

If you are ofended by some inanimate object then there is probably more problem with you than the retard who wants to be called an artist.

[Volourn]

"So here is my question, we know these types of events are legal in the USA despite being offensive to most Muslims...so why have them? Do we balance the right to freedom of expression against the safety of people and say " you are welcome to arrange this art exhibition but you are at risk and the Police cannot guarantee to protect you " 

 

Because apparently these attackers had a  bomb as well and could have created real havoc..and for what? Just so someone can have some really controversial art show?

 

So I'm not sure on this one in the sense " is it really worth having these types of events " knowing the amount of manpower that is now needed just to keep the premises  safe ?"

\

Yet you don't whine about the stuff that make fun of the Christian, Catholic, and other religious and non rleigous sects? Is it ebcause you simply fear extemist Muslims so much that you will bow down and kiss their behinds because of cowardice?

 

Free speech is free speech. The art exhibit did nothing wrong. Why are defending Muslim extremism?

 

 

Here's a qesution: Let's say SJWs and  anti GGers put on an art exhibit to make fun of/mock GG and some psycho  pro GGer (cause all groups have them) decides to attack/bomb/threaten it? Do you think those anti GG exhinits should be banned/outlawed for the reasons you posted above? Of course not. Only nazis think that. No, what you do, is find the scumbags who use violence to squash opponents and throw them in prison. PERIOD.

Edited May 4, 2015 by Volourn

[BruceVC]

You are entering a very muddy ground with this one.

 

For example some more orthodox catholics find public gay parades offensive. Some others find the misuse of the cross and christ offensive etc. The thing is that you cannot make exceptions for one religion and its symbols and beliefs (in this case) and exclude the from the freedom of artistic expression even if controvensial as long as it is not a "hate speech". just because showing some bad taste in creation is aimed at controversy in demographics that has high probability to bomb you it should not prevent the artist from expressing his art and showing to the world how "progresively" retarded he or she is... otherwise other religion will also want more power over the forms of expression.

 

If you are ofended by some inanimate object then there is probably more problem with you than the retard who wants to be called an artist.

 

Yeah I agree this is a muddy one which is exactly why I want views

 

Just to be clear if there was an art exhibition and pictures of Jesus were being displayed like in this one I would also find it offensive..my view is " what is the purpose of this whole event" ?

 

To show the world that the organizers think that Muslims are violent? I don't get the overall point 

[Volourn]

"Just to be clear if there was an art exhibition and pictures of Jesus were being displayed like in this one I would also find it offensive..my view is " what is the purpose of this whole event" ?"

 

Plenty of art mocking Christianity/Jesus. You know what Western society says to those offended? Tough up buttercup. It's part of free speech.

 

 

"To show the world that the organizers think that Muslims are violent? I don't get the overall point "
 

The best way to show how mad you are that someone thinks your group is violent is to... use/attemtp to sue violence against them.

\

\YOU DO SEE THE ILLOGIC RIGHT?

Edited May 4, 2015 by Volourn

[kirottu]

my view is " what is the purpose of this whole event "?

Purpose of art is to be.

[Darkpriest]

There really is no point beyond becoming a media coverage and in their mind defending the right of free speach. There were similar caseses with Jesus in some highly catholic countries and they were stormed by more fanatical catholics.

 

To me the point in case is that some retard who has 0 success creates something highly controvensial in hopes of getting coverage and possibly interest people in other creations of this "artist".

 

The less coverage these people get thw better, but media also want some controversy so they will have clicks/views etc.

[BruceVC]

But guys did you look at some of the art? Its not even objective....its blatantly anti-Islam, also one of the key note speakers was Geert Wilders, ask anyone who lives in the Netherlands to tell you about him and his views on Muslims 

 

Was this really about art? To me it seemed like this whole exhibition was organised under the pretense that its " about freedom of expression" but the organizers are well aware that this could lead to violence because of the controversial nature of the artwork...and then guess what? Extremists do attack the event and now what? Does this feed the narrative that  " you see..Islam is a violent religion..you can't even have an art display without Muslims wanting to destroy it " 

 

Yet wouldn't you say this was about provocation and actually the desired result the organizers could have anticipated?

[BruceVC]

"Just to be clear if there was an art exhibition and pictures of Jesus were being displayed like in this one I would also find it offensive..my view is " what is the purpose of this whole event" ?"

 

Plenty of art mocking Christianity/Jesus. You know what Western society says to those offended? Tough up buttercup. It's part of free speech.

 

 

"To show the world that the organizers think that Muslims are violent? I don't get the overall point "

 

The best way to show how mad you are that someone thinks your group is violent is to... use/attemtp to sue violence against them.

\

\YOU DO SEE THE ILLOGIC RIGHT?

 

Are there art exhibitions in the Middle East that mock other religions?  I don't think there are

 

But I get your point  around the usage of violence. But we already know there are such things are Islamic extremists who do commit reprehensible acts, so whats the point of now provoking them?

[Monte Carlo]

In the 1930s, Bruce, you would have been a 'useful idiot.'

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot

[Monte Carlo]

Are there art exhibitions in the Middle East that mock other religions?  I don't think there are

 

 

As if to prove my point, there you go. In the Middle East there is hardly any democratic government or free expression. The last Christian churches are being demolished in Iraq and Syria. We all know how the Saudis treat women. I don't see you hopping up and down about any of this, but a politically incorrect cartoon competition in faraway Texas results in you putting on your SJW superhero costume.

 

Edit - Visual representations of living things is, by the way, Haram to Islamists. Might be why you don't see the type of art you describe, although I've seen lots of performances in that part of the world that involve burning the Stars and Stripes.

Edited May 4, 2015 by Monte Carlo

[Monte Carlo]

Have just read the story. Only visited Texas once. Loved it. A large proportion of the population was armed and dangerous. Wilders goes everywhere with serious security.

 

In short this is an epic terrorist fail. Of all the things to attack on a whim, these halfwits chose a heavily-armed meeting of angry Texan freedom-lovers, along with the most body-guarded European politician of his generation.

 

Only one way that story was gonna end.

[Volourn]

"But guys did you look at some of the art? Its not even objective....its blatantly anti-Islam"\

 

And?

 

Again... should anti GG exhibits and meetings be censored or shutdown because some wackjob  attacks them? NO.

 

Why are you defending psychopathic extremist violent scumbags? That's just... wrong.

[Meshugger]

Sooooooo, what we apparantly need is a commissar an ombudsman that looks through art galleries and art forums for content that is objectively intolerant or anti-[insert religious group that is granted minority privilege status according to the Lex Absurdus Infinitum, paragraph 3]-ist. The ruling of the ombudsman is not of course final and can be appealed in open court, but the art itself or the exhibition will be closed for public viewing until all appeals have been used.

 

Expect the median time for the appeals to be 3-5 years.

 

...or maybe you should just thoughen up, buttercup. Other people's freedoms shall not end where the feelings or religious nutjobs begin.

[Walsingham]

Getting offended by the way someone depicts religion = natural

 

Picketing or protesting the way someone depicts your religion = legal

 

Killing people _because_ you are offended = mental illness

Edited May 4, 2015 by Walsingham

[BruceVC]

 

Are there art exhibitions in the Middle East that mock other religions?  I don't think there are

 

 

As if to prove my point, there you go. In the Middle East there is hardly any democratic government or free expression. The last Christian churches are being demolished in Iraq and Syria. We all know how the Saudis treat women. I don't see you hopping up and down about any of this, but a politically incorrect cartoon competition in faraway Texas results in you putting on your SJW superhero costume.

 

Edit - Visual representations of living things is, by the way, Haram to Islamists. Might be why you don't see the type of art you describe, although I've seen lots of performances in that part of the world that involve burning the Stars and Stripes.

 

 

I think you guys are completely missing my point, in summary if you know something is going to offend people and quote possibly lead to violence or attacks on that institution then why do it? We also know the Middle East isn't very tolerant around other religions within there own countries but what has that got to do with Western countries and how  we manage our own  civil rights and human rights  ...its like saying " now because Coptic  Christians were attacked in Libya by ISIS we should be fine with Mosques being attacked  within this Western country " 

 

Don't we hold ourselves to a different standard than ISIS or any extremist group?

Getting offended by the way someone depicts religion = natural

 

Picketing or protesting the way someone depicts your religion = legal

 

Killing people _because_ you are offended = mental illness

 

I agree 100 %

 

But it doesn't change the reality that people do get killed because some get   offended...so why not look at reducing this source of controversy? And this art exhibition was very controversial, even the locals didn't want it in the area. So there should be no doubt that people were concerned about the reaction

Edited May 4, 2015 by BruceVC

[BruceVC]

Have just read the story. Only visited Texas once. Loved it. A large proportion of the population was armed and dangerous. Wilders goes everywhere with serious security.

 

In short this is an epic terrorist fail. Of all the things to attack on a whim, these halfwits chose a heavily-armed meeting of angry Texan freedom-lovers, along with the most body-guarded European politician of his generation.

 

Only one way that story was gonna end.

 

Yeah I agree, its probably the dumpiest location to attempt to attack something and the private security was more than adequate to deal with it.

 

That's not the point I am making though  

[Monte Carlo]

Bruce, man, 1938 was your time. You'd have loved it. Munich with Chamberlain.

 

"Look, Hitler only wants the Sudetenland. That's it. Nothing else. Just let him have it, he'll stop then. Honest. Then there will be Peace in our Time."

 

Look how that turned out.

 

Perhaps the people in Texas are trolling. Perhaps they are denuded. Perhaps they aren't the type of people you'd want to invite around for tea and cake. But they aren't breaking the law of the place they live. They are exercising hard-won rights.

 

This might be difficult for you to understand, but to the protagonists in this affair these are deadly serious (nay, inviolable) rights. Existential, even. And, perhaps, they look across the world and see their 'leaders' ignoring Christians in orange boiler suits being beheaded on the shores of the Mediterranean and are issuing a wake-up call.

 

Today's Nazis are intriguing. They feast on failed states and leech from the soul of a world religion. They use first world guilt as a shield for rape and murder. And we stand and watch and worry about cartoons.

[BruceVC]

Bruce, man, 1938 was your time. You'd have loved it. Munich with Chamberlain.

 

"Look, Hitler only wants the Sudetenland. That's it. Nothing else. Just let him have it, he'll stop then. Honest. Then there will be Peace in our Time."

 

Look how that turned out.

 

Perhaps the people in Texas are trolling. Perhaps they are denuded. Perhaps they aren't the type of people you'd want to invite around for tea and cake. But they aren't breaking the law of the place they live. They are exercising hard-won rights.

 

This might be difficult for you to understand, but to the protagonists in this affair these are deadly serious (nay, inviolable) rights. Existential, even. And, perhaps, they look across the world and see their 'leaders' ignoring Christians in orange boiler suits being beheaded on the shores of the Mediterranean and are issuing a wake-up call.

 

Today's Nazis are intriguing. They feast on failed states and leech from the soul of a world religion. They use first world guilt as a shield for rape and murder. And we stand and watch and worry about cartoons.

 

I don't disagree with everything you are saying, maybe this is a case of people getting tired of the double-standards to how Christians are treated in certain places and are now saying 

" we know this exhibition may get attacked but we don't care because this is about freedom of expression and in our culture this is sacrosanct"

 

Sure I can understand that..I still do not think this was best the platform to make this kind of point but I can understand it 

 

Edited May 4, 2015 by BruceVC

[Volourn]

I wonder what Bruce thinks of abortion. With his attitude abortion would  still be completely illegal, abortion clincs would be shut down, pro abortionists/freedom of choicers would be censored, and fundamental christian crazies who used violence to oppose it would have 'won'. That's the kind of world Bruce wants to live in - where violent psychopaths get what they want.

[BruceVC]

I wonder what Bruce thinks of abortion. With his attitude abortion would  still be completely illegal, abortion clincs would be shut down, pro abortionists/freedom of choicers would be censored, and fundamental christian crazies who used violence to oppose it would have 'won'. That's the kind of world Bruce wants to live in - where violent psychopaths get what they want.

 

Not sure how this relevant to my point in this thread  but I believe abortion in certain cases is fine and the decision should be the women's choice 

[JadedWolf]

Hmm, so guys, do you think I should be able to get police protection if I decide to exercise my right to free speech by setting fire to Feijenoord shirts outside of the Feijenoord stadium, while wearing an Ajax shirt? I'll call it an art performance, if that helps.

 

If anyone then attacks the policemen, it won't be my responsibility at all.

Edited May 4, 2015 by JadedWolf

[Hiro Protagonist]

Wouldn't you be arrested for lighting fires in a public place or at least get a fine?

[JadedWolf]

Wouldn't you be arrested for lighting fires in a public place or at least get a fine?

 

Well, yes, in theory I should probably have to obtain a permit first. Which in reality wouldn't happen.

[Hiro Protagonist]

So you're doing the wrong thing, breaking the law and you would be arrested or at least receive a fine.