Men killed outside Art Exhibition in Dallas

[Monte Carlo]

How can you have freedom of speech lite?

[Meshugger]

[BruceVC]

How can you have freedom of speech lite?

 

No you right you can't 

 

But we can balance that freedom of speech against  consequences can't we?

 

And no I'm not suggesting now every time  someone wants to say something they need to go through a  formula to determine if someone somewhere around the world will be offended and what the consequences will be    ...I am talking about the obvious things, like images of the Prophet and what the reaction we KNOW will occur 

[Hurlshort]

What is your punishment for those that step over that line?  Fines?  Imprisonment? 

 

We police this stuff with public condemnation and mockery already, they don't need to bring in actual laws.  Balancing consequences with free speech seems like a good way to slow down societal change tremendously.

[BruceVC]

What is your punishment for those that step over that line?  Fines?  Imprisonment? 

 

We police this stuff with public condemnation and mockery already, they don't need to bring in actual laws.  Balancing consequences with free speech seems like a good way to slow down societal change tremendously.

 

When you say "stepping over the line" in what context do you mean? All people who commit crimes...Muslims who commit crimes...Europeans who commit crimes? Sorry I'm not clear on your meaning ?

 

Also I'm not suggesting we legislate that  people can't print images of the Prophet, we just accept that its not something we do as a society. But I am not saying we make it illegal 

 

So in other words if no one was prepared to support the art exhibition then they wouldn't have had it in the first place ?

[Nonek]

 

Bruce, don't you see an inherent contradiction of your stance on this issue and your previous statements regarding censorship and the use / threat of violence?

 

For example, this quote from another thread ....

 

...the point being the threat of violence has impacted someone saying what they want to say...we should be condemning this

 

 

Why is this instance different?  I am genuinely curious as to why you think this situation is unique.

 

I'll gladly answer, it should be clear by now that the GG thread is not about serious debate..people just want to defend or attack SJ  causes without logic or reason

 

So please don't quote anything I say on that thread because everything people say on that thread needs context

 

That comment I made that you quoted was more to see if people would condemn the fact that Anita couldn't make some speech due to a threat of violence...yet when the GG conference was disrupted by  bomb hoax(  a threat of violence ) people were outraged. I see this is as inconsistent. But lets not discuss anything GG related outside of that thread, it always leaves a bad taste in my mouth

 

So back to this debate and something more relevant. I never said or suggested that I sympathize with the act of violence perpetuated by Islamic extremists, I said I can understand why Muslims believe that images of the Prophet are offensive..its considered blasphemy to them. So why provoke them with this type of exhibition?

 

I hope you have time to reply because I appreciate your perspective on matters

 

 

That's a lie Bruce, almost everybody on the GG thread condemned the alleged threat of attack on Sarkeesian, and every reasonable person also condemned the bomb threat against a GG party. There was no inconsistency, and the GG thread has sparked some good debate, when the participants were capable of basic literacy, reason and logic rather than repeating the same disproven point over and over again.

Edited May 4, 2015 by Nonek

[JadedWolf]

To be honest, I find Bruce's view on Muslims paradoxically insulting to Muslims. As if they are not capable of the same rationality and detachment that is expected of people of other faiths. Actually, I think he is doing exactly what the people who held the event are doing, and that is lumping all Muslims on one heap and saying they are all the same.

 

Look, I think we can all agree that what is supposed to happen here is that these people would have their "art exhibition", nothing would happen; Muslims would come forth and say that while they don't agree with the subject matter, they support the right of people to hold such events, and the whole thing would disappear into oblivion like it deserves to.

 

But, as I tried to say before, what irks me is that there is a certain cynicism at work here from the side of those who hold events like this, where they are almost asking for something like this to happen in order to further their own agenda.

[BruceVC]

 

 

Bruce, don't you see an inherent contradiction of your stance on this issue and your previous statements regarding censorship and the use / threat of violence?

 

For example, this quote from another thread ....

 

...the point being the threat of violence has impacted someone saying what they want to say...we should be condemning this

 

 

Why is this instance different?  I am genuinely curious as to why you think this situation is unique.

 

I'll gladly answer, it should be clear by now that the GG thread is not about serious debate..people just want to defend or attack SJ  causes without logic or reason

 

So please don't quote anything I say on that thread because everything people say on that thread needs context

 

That comment I made that you quoted was more to see if people would condemn the fact that Anita couldn't make some speech due to a threat of violence...yet when the GG conference was disrupted by  bomb hoax(  a threat of violence ) people were outraged. I see this is as inconsistent. But lets not discuss anything GG related outside of that thread, it always leaves a bad taste in my mouth

 

So back to this debate and something more relevant. I never said or suggested that I sympathize with the act of violence perpetuated by Islamic extremists, I said I can understand why Muslims believe that images of the Prophet are offensive..its considered blasphemy to them. So why provoke them with this type of exhibition?

 

I hope you have time to reply because I appreciate your perspective on matters

 

 

That's a lie Bruce, almost everybody on the GG thread condemned the attack on Sarkeesian, and every reasonable person also condemned the bomb threat against a GG party. There was no inconsistency, and the GG thread has sparked some good debate, when the participants were capable of basic literacy, reason and logic rather than repeating the same disproven point over and over again.

 

Well once again this is something we just don't agree on Nonek and that's fine, its good we have different views.  

 

To be honest, I find Bruce's view on Muslims paradoxically insulting to Muslims. As if they are not capable of the same rationality and detachment that is expected of people of other faiths. Actually, I think he is doing exactly what the people who held the event are doing, and that is lumping all Muslims on one heap and saying they are all the same.

 

Look, I think we can all agree that what is supposed to happen here is that these people would have their "art exhibition", nothing would happen; Muslims would come forth and say that while they don't agree with the subject matter, they support the right of people to hold such events, and the whole thing would disappear into oblivion like it deserves to.

 

 

 

But that's not my point really, I agree the majority of Muslims will say  "we don't agree with it but we respect the right to have this exhibition ".....to be honest that is the only legal  and appropriate response I would expect from people living in countries where this type of exhibition would be allowed, its not like the entire Muslim community in Dallas is going to get guns and run around killing people 

 

But its still considered offensive and then you will have a violent response from a fringe element that will manifest itself in different ways in different countries...it will also just add to the  " the West doesn't respect our religion " BS and sentiment. And trust me this is real, I hear it all the time on this prominent Radio Talk Show I listen to in South Africa where some Muslim callers constantly attack the West on ideological grounds and still bring up the Iraq invasion as " proof that the West wants to destroy Islam " ....you would think I'm joking but some people really believe this 

[Nonek]

 

 

 

Bruce, don't you see an inherent contradiction of your stance on this issue and your previous statements regarding censorship and the use / threat of violence?

 

For example, this quote from another thread ....

 

...the point being the threat of violence has impacted someone saying what they want to say...we should be condemning this

 

 

Why is this instance different?  I am genuinely curious as to why you think this situation is unique.

 

I'll gladly answer, it should be clear by now that the GG thread is not about serious debate..people just want to defend or attack SJ  causes without logic or reason

 

So please don't quote anything I say on that thread because everything people say on that thread needs context

 

That comment I made that you quoted was more to see if people would condemn the fact that Anita couldn't make some speech due to a threat of violence...yet when the GG conference was disrupted by  bomb hoax(  a threat of violence ) people were outraged. I see this is as inconsistent. But lets not discuss anything GG related outside of that thread, it always leaves a bad taste in my mouth

 

So back to this debate and something more relevant. I never said or suggested that I sympathize with the act of violence perpetuated by Islamic extremists, I said I can understand why Muslims believe that images of the Prophet are offensive..its considered blasphemy to them. So why provoke them with this type of exhibition?

 

I hope you have time to reply because I appreciate your perspective on matters

 

 

That's a lie Bruce, almost everybody on the GG thread condemned the attack on Sarkeesian, and every reasonable person also condemned the bomb threat against a GG party. There was no inconsistency, and the GG thread has sparked some good debate, when the participants were capable of basic literacy, reason and logic rather than repeating the same disproven point over and over again.

 

 

Well once again this is something we just don't agree on Nonek and that's fine, its good we have different views.  

 

 

No it is a matter of fact that you're lying Bruce not a different view.

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

 

Bruce, don't you see an inherent contradiction of your stance on this issue and your previous statements regarding censorship and the use / threat of violence?

 

For example, this quote from another thread ....

 

...the point being the threat of violence has impacted someone saying what they want to say...we should be condemning this

 

 

Why is this instance different?  I am genuinely curious as to why you think this situation is unique.

 

I'll gladly answer, it should be clear by now that the GG thread is not about serious debate..people just want to defend or attack SJ  causes without logic or reason

 

So please don't quote anything I say on that thread because everything people say on that thread needs context

 

That comment I made that you quoted was more to see if people would condemn the fact that Anita couldn't make some speech due to a threat of violence...yet when the GG conference was disrupted by  bomb hoax(  a threat of violence ) people were outraged. I see this is as inconsistent. But lets not discuss anything GG related outside of that thread, it always leaves a bad taste in my mouth

 

So back to this debate and something more relevant. I never said or suggested that I sympathize with the act of violence perpetuated by Islamic extremists, I said I can understand why Muslims believe that images of the Prophet are offensive..its considered blasphemy to them. So why provoke them with this type of exhibition?

 

I hope you have time to reply because I appreciate your perspective on matters

 

 

That's a lie Bruce, almost everybody on the GG thread condemned the attack on Sarkeesian, and every reasonable person also condemned the bomb threat against a GG party. There was no inconsistency, and the GG thread has sparked some good debate, when the participants were capable of basic literacy, reason and logic rather than repeating the same disproven point over and over again.

 

 

Well once again this is something we just don't agree on Nonek and that's fine, its good we have different views.  

 

 

No it is a matter of fact that you're lying Bruce not a different view.

 

 Nonek are you really going to tell me you think the GG thread is an example on these forums of intellectual and mature debate ?

[Nonek]

 

 Nonek are you really going to tell me you think the GG thread is an example on these forums of intellectual and mature debate ?

 

 

When the participants are intelligent and mature, yes. When they're unable to even follow the discussion, comprehend a simple joke, or offer reasoned debate and factual analysis, instead resorting to the same tired false idiocies once again, then no.

 

Edit: For instance if we had a poster whom praised the western world as the epitome of civilisation and government, then wanted one of the undeniably moral and good building blocks of it to be circumvented for the sake of upset amongst people he himself describes as unreasonable and irrational. That kind of person is obviously not capable of rational, intelliegent or mature debate.

 

Your trolling is old and needs a new coat of paint Bruce, everybody can tell what you're going to say before you say it.

Edited May 4, 2015 by Nonek

[Hurlshort]

When you say "stepping over the line" in what context do you mean? All people who commit crimes...Muslims who commit crimes...Europeans who commit crimes? Sorry I'm not clear on your meaning ?

 

Also I'm not suggesting we legislate that  people can't print images of the Prophet, we just accept that its not something we do as a society. But I am not saying we make it illegal 

 

So in other words if no one was prepared to support the art exhibition then they wouldn't have had it in the first place ?

 

 

Society already says the art exhibit was tasteless and antagonistic.  This is a fringe group.  How do you plan on dealing with fringe groups?

 

The idea that everyone is just going to accept something to benefit society as a whole is fairly naive.  I expect that stuff out of my 7th graders when we are discussing the 1st and 2nd amendments.  

Edited May 4, 2015 by Hurlshot

[HoonDing]

Good to see Wilders finally defected.

[BruceVC]

 

When you say "stepping over the line" in what context do you mean? All people who commit crimes...Muslims who commit crimes...Europeans who commit crimes? Sorry I'm not clear on your meaning ?

 

Also I'm not suggesting we legislate that  people can't print images of the Prophet, we just accept that its not something we do as a society. But I am not saying we make it illegal 

 

So in other words if no one was prepared to support the art exhibition then they wouldn't have had it in the first place ?

 

 

Society already says the art exhibit was tasteless and antagonistic.  This is a fringe group.  How do you plan on dealing with fringe groups?

 

The idea that everyone is just going to accept something to benefit society as a whole is fairly naive.  I expect that stuff out of my 7th graders when we are discussing the 1st and 2nd amendments.  

 

 

Do the majority of  society say the exhibition was tasteless?  The general consensus seems to be the  exhibition was fine as its a part of freedom of speech? But I may be misinterpreting some of the responses in this thread  

 

Also aren't all religions based on the premise that if you believe in something then society as a whole will benefit? You don't see me saying that is naive because I would consider that insulting and condescending to people of faith, like you and others on these forums. And I don't believe its naive to think Muslims and the Western world can  live together in harmony  as long as we respect certain boundaries 

 

As far as Fringe groups go there isn't much you can do in the USA because this is seen as freedom of speech but I doubt this exhibition would be allowed in South Africa or many other countries as in our Constitution we believe in freedom of speech but not if it infringes  on the dignity of a person....the dignity of person takes precedence over free speech which is why certain words are just not acceptable in public in South Africa. People can lose there jobs for saying them but they won't do jail time 

[Ineth]

Do the majority of  society say the exhibition was tasteless?  The general consensus seems to be the  exhibition was fine as its a part of freedom of speech?

 

Both.

 

1) It was tasteless.

2) It was, and should be, protected by free speech.

[Volourn]

"Here are some of  the art exhibitions, take a look and tell me what message they are trying to express in your opinion?"

 

Their mocking Muslim extremism. Good on 'e,

 

I never see you cry when artists mock Christianity/Catholism. Why so hypocritical?

[Walsingham]

The fundamental issue you're all touching on is that law has to be applied to all equally, whereas sensibility is fine tuned.

 

The law has to protect the views of mouth-breathing air-thieves so that I can post what I like. I don't have to like the ****ers, or respect them.

 

If you don't get this then you're closer to the fethwits who shoot up newspapers than you probably think. Because you're a spoon-fed arse-brain.

 

EDIT: the censor filter on this forum is less constraining than I thought.

 

Sub-edit: mkreku, you windflap, this is a private forum. Obsidian don't have to let you say what you like any more than I'd have to if you were in my living room

Edited May 4, 2015 by Walsingham

[Zoraptor]

I do tend to wonder at which point free speech and hate speech intersect. I could easily see dumping bacon on the front step of a synagogue being regarded as 'hate speech' while doing the same at a mosque would be free speech, given the current climate. End of the day in both cases the person might have the right to do it, but I'm not going to spare a single tear if they get their nose splattered across their face as a consequence; it would be played for and got. Which really is the point of provocation or being provocative, of course, it is to provoke. Any significant point made with a Muhammed cartoon can be made as well without one, it's just poking a bear with a pencil to prove how aggressive it is- a self fulfilling prophecy and if the bear pulls your arm off then meh, guess you've 'proved' your point about the bear, good job but don't expect me to cry myself to sleep at night to a #IkbenWilders hashtag.

[Volourn]

"but I'm not going to spare a single tear if they get their nose splattered across their face as a consequence; it would be played for and got."

 

So.. you believe in violent solutions to non violent problems? Okay than. That makes you a nazi ISIS symapthizer.

[Nonek]

I can't speak for any Muslims as their faith is not mine, but speaking with a colleague whom follows Muhammed last week, he seemed far more caught up in what Isis are doing to the cultural treasures of the cradle of civilisation, and usually just rolls his eyes at the demonisation and baiting that are indulged in by the gutter press and other media. Then again he's a historian and scholar, and slightly removed from the modern world.

[Zoraptor]

"but I'm not going to spare a single tear if they get their nose splattered across their face as a consequence; it would be played for and got."

 

So.. you believe in violent solutions to non violent problems? Okay than. That makes you a nazi ISIS symapthizer.

 

Please Volo, desist with the falsities and commence with the verities. Lying makes you a nazi ISIS communist vegan sjw sympathiser, you should stop and repent before it is too late.

 

Ain't my solution- I just don't care if it happens. Choices and Consequences. I wouldn't splatter their noses nor would I encourage others to; I just won't be crying into my corn flakes over the injustice of it all when people who provoke manage to, well, provoke. Because it's what they're trying to do.

[Volourn]

"nor would I encourage others to; I just won't be crying into my corn flakes over the injustice of it all when people who provoke manage to, well, provoke. Because it's what they're trying to do."

 

Except you did encourage it. Byt saying it is an acceptable  reaction/beahviour you are saying you are a-ok it. That's right. You think it's okay to hit someone because they left a piece of bacon on some steps. Don't you see how evil that is?

 

Violence is only acceptable to defend yourself or someone else from violent attack. PERIOD.

Edited May 5, 2015 by Volourn

[Gorgon]

Why can't both the lunatics and the people who provoked them be morons, is there some kind of rule against that ?. That doesn't mean we are comparing them on an equal basis. 

 

Clearly the shooters got what they deserved. 

[Zoraptor]

Simple answer is that they are both morons. If they disappeared from the face of the planet it would be a net benefit to mankind, though preferably have them disappear by dint of them changing from being morons to not being morons.

 

"Except you did encourage it"

 

No. Being apathetic towards something neither condones nor condemns by definition- FACT- because you don't have only binary condone/ condemn options- unless you're fundamentally a binary moran, oddly enough rather like the morans involved in both sides of this story. You aren't a binary moran, are you Volo? You're a fully functional nuanced human bean, yes? So, buy some cards and deal with it, build a bridge and get over it, whatever, you are WRONG and should apologise then quite the internet forever or something.

 

Yours with appropriate L0L/ r00fles,

 

Z

Edited May 5, 2015 by Zoraptor

[ManifestedISO]

 

Your trolling is old and needs a new coat of paint Bruce, everybody can tell what you're going to say before you say it.

 

Genuinely untrue. 

 

eww, okay, political threads, must leave, got a fantastic golf game to attend ... handicap is down to +3.1 ... whatever that means ... something about added strokes for being awesome with balls and a shaft