• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Two Shot at Muhammad Art Exhibit [W:439, 529, 978, 1489]

Re: Two Shot at Muhammad Art Exhibit in Texas [W:439, 529]

Well Mark, who has suggested that they didn't have a first amendment right to be childish??

No one reasonable. That was my point.
 
Re: Shooting at Muhammad Art Exhibit in Texas

The two aren't even remotely analogous... Why did you even bother?

Both blame the victim even though the victim was well within their rights. You have to own your argument. I merely clarified it for you
 
Re: Two Shot at Muhammad Art Exhibit in Texas [W:439, 529]

I'm sure the liberal response after those attacks will be that we deserve it
No one deserves to be attacked like that.

No reasonable person would suggest such a thing.

That said, being attacked does not validate stupidity, which I think drawing mocking pictures of the leading figure from a major religion which has violent radical followers...qualifies as.


At the least it qualifies as a somewhat asshole move.


Edit: tl;dr: Being stupid doesn't deserve violence, but violence doesn't make stupid...smart.
 
Re: Two Shot at Muhammad Art Exhibit in Texas

He's saying that the argument about criticizing the cartoon festival being off base because 1st A is an unrelated argument to the shooting.

Just because they got shot at doesn't mean they were right to do what they did.

Basically.

They were right to do what they did because of the Constitution. We have to keep drilling that concept into liberals over and over since they side with the two dead shooters
 
Re: Two Shot at Muhammad Art Exhibit in Texas

They were right to do what they did because of the Constitution. We have to keep drilling that concept into liberals over and over since they side with the two dead shooters
No.

The 1st A protects their right to speak, but it doesn't make their speech right.
 
Re: Two Shot at Muhammad Art Exhibit in Texas [W:439, 529]

He's a hero and his family should be proud

Yes, he is. The cartoonists, not so much.
 
Re: Two Shot at Muhammad Art Exhibit in Texas [W:439, 529]

No one deserves to be attacked like that.

No reasonable person would suggest such a thing.
Liberals across America are claiming exactly that, they're blaming the victims

That said, being attacked does not validate stupidity, which I think drawing mocking pictures of the leading figure from a major religion which has violent radical followers...qualifies as.


At the least it qualifies as a somewhat asshole move.


Edit: tl;dr: Being stupid doesn't deserve violence, but violence doesn't make stupid...smart.
Where were liberals when Christians tried to get government funding cut for alleged art that defamed Christianity?
 
Re: Two Shot at Muhammad Art Exhibit in Texas

No.

The 1st A protects their right to speak, but it doesn't make their speech right.

Exactly, and nobodies siding with the two attackers.
 
Re: Shooting at Muhammad Art Exhibit in Texas

Both blame the victim even though the victim was well within their rights. You have to own your argument. I merely clarified it for you

One is doing something to deliberately incite anger and hatred and the other isn't. Like I said, not even close.
 
Re: Two Shot at Muhammad Art Exhibit in Texas [W:439, 529]

Liberals across America are claiming exactly that, they're blaming the victims
I haven't heard of this happening at all.

Granted I don't watch the news...but you'd think it would leak into other media.

Where were liberals when Christians tried to get government funding cut for alleged art that defamed Christianity?
who cares? When someone tries to restrain speech just because it offends them, they are wrong to do so.

The Christians in that case, and the attackers in this case.
 
Re: Shooting at Muhammad Art Exhibit in Texas

One is doing something to deliberately incite anger and hatred and the other isn't. Like I said, not even close.
Wow, I guess we know how you feel about women in short skirts now
 
Re: Two Shot at Muhammad Art Exhibit in Texas [W:439, 529]

No one reasonable. That was my point.

There you have it. Thus my criticism of their very provocative and childish choice of manor in which to flex their free speech muscle.
 
Re: Two Shot at Muhammad Art Exhibit in Texas [W:439, 529]

I haven't heard of this happening at all.

Granted I don't watch the news...but you'd think it would leak into other media.
Just read this thread

who cares? When someone tries to restrain speech just because it offends them, they are wrong to do so.

The Christians in that case, and the attackers in this case.
Good job. You somehow find moral equivalence between Christians and the ISIS attackers. You gotta love liberal thought processes
 
Re: Shooting at Muhammad Art Exhibit in Texas

Wow, I guess we know how you feel about women in short skirts now

You think that women wearing short skirts is anlogous to those inciting anger from radical Muslims and you think that this somehow reflects poorly on how I view women in short skirts? You analogy and your thought process is ridiculous sophomoric.
 
Re: Two Shot at Muhammad Art Exhibit in Texas [W:439, 529]

So do you walk up to little adults and call them ****ing midgets on a regular basis or is the whole, expressing free speech for anything, just a bunch of bull****?

I don't generally walk up to anyone and call them anything... but if I were to do so, a violent assault as a reaction would be unjustified and illegal.

legally speaking , the whole free speech thing is NOT a bunch of bull****.... one can argue that "can" doesn't mean "should" , but that's primarily a moral argument, not a legal argument.
 
Re: Shooting at Muhammad Art Exhibit in Texas

I didn't say that she is guilty of a crime. I said that she holds some blame. Learn to read.

no she doesn't. If Bush supporters had come a gunning for someone who drew a picture of Bush looking like a chimp or the ass who posted a bill board that had OBL sodomizing Bush, would you claim that the BDS artist deserved having hit men gunning for him?

Look, this is a free society. Those who get their panties in a wad over opinions they don't like need to deal with it. and if they react violently, they need to end up like those two scum bags in Texas did

on a slab
 
Re: Two Shot at Muhammad Art Exhibit in Texas [W:439, 529]

Just read this thread
I don't recall seeing any post in this thread blaming the people drawing cartoons for being attacked.

At most, they criticized them for doing something that taunts violent extremists. Not at all the same thing.

But perhaps I missed some posts, so feel free to quote a few.

Good job. You somehow find moral equivalence between Christians and the ISIS attackers. You gotta love liberal thought processes

Incorrect. I find equivalence of goal - namely, censoring speech.
The Christians quite obviously went with the VASTLY more reasonable tactic of using the courts.
The attackers (were they actually ISIS or did ISIS just claim so? I haven't been following very closely...) went with an attempt at brute force, and luckily did very little harm before a vastly better trained security guard killed them.
 
Re: Shooting at Muhammad Art Exhibit in Texas

You think that women wearing short skirts is anlogous to those inciting anger from radical Muslims and you think that this somehow reflects poorly on how I view women in short skirts? You analogy and your thought process is ridiculous sophomoric.

wearing short skirts has been argued to be a justification of rape...the analogy fits this scenario pretty well.

drawing Mohammed may incite anger in the same way a short skirt incites sexual thoughts.... neither justify an unlawful response, though... in both cases, the victim is 100% innocent of wrongdoing.
 
Re: Two Shot at Muhammad Art Exhibit in Texas [W:439, 529]

:roll: No, it is simply stupid that they felt they needed to exercise "free speech" like they did. Do you purposely say offensive things to people just because you want to? No, because common decency acts as a barrier to being a rude asshole. Does this stupid lady or her group deserve blame for the violence? No... are they stupid ****ing morons that should have not been intentionally disrespectful assholes that knew that many Muslims would be very offended and that violence might occur? Hell ****ing yes. Only a complete dip**** would not understand this... (not calling you one just to be clear mods)
Yes, it's a given that when anyone is critical of Islam violence may occur. If that wasn't the case Muslims would be the butt of jokes everywhere.

But in fact Islamic violence and intimidation should not be allowed to silence anyone and that issue must be addressed. Pamela Geller is one of a handful of people in this world who dares stand up against these religious nutcases and she deserves credit for doing so.

You can let yourself be silenced through threats and intimidation, and ignore the violence being committed against Gays, women, heretics, and so on, but don't expect everyone else to follow in your shaky footsteps.
 
Re: Shooting at Muhammad Art Exhibit in Texas

You think that women wearing short skirts is anlogous to those inciting anger from radical Muslims and you think that this somehow reflects poorly on how I view women in short skirts? You analogy and your thought process is ridiculous sophomoric.
Sorry, but it's your side blaming the victim. Some things never change
 
Re: Two Shot at Muhammad Art Exhibit in Texas [W:439, 529]

Two shot dead outside Muhammad Art Exhibit in Garland

This was at a facility in Garland, Texas, near Dallas.

I gather this was an exhibit of artwork that depicts Muhammad, a la Charlie Hebdo, in defiance of radical Muslims and in affirmation of freedom of speech.

Two guys drove up armed with guns and explosives, opened fire, and were killed straight away by return fire.

It's a bad idea to go gunning for any group of Texans without a lot of firepower.
lulz

Nice one. Good on ya, Texas. :thumbs:
 
Re: Shooting at Muhammad Art Exhibit in Texas

Here is how free speech works with a real not-insane religion when you poke fun at it:

On the musical THE BOOK OF MORMON:

The response of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to the musical has been described as "measured".[70] The church released an official response to inquiries regarding the musical, stating, "The production may attempt to entertain audiences for an evening, but the Book of Mormon as a volume of scripture will change people's lives forever by bringing them closer to Christ."[71] Michael Otterson, the head of Public Affairs for the church, followed in April 2011 with measured criticism. "Of course, parody isn't reality, and it's the very distortion that makes it appealing and often funny. The danger is not when people laugh but when they take it seriously—if they leave a theater believing that Mormons really do live in some kind of a surreal world of self-deception and illusion", Otterson wrote, outlining various humanitarian efforts achieved by Mormon missionaries in Africa in recent years.[72][73]

Stone and Parker were unsurprised:[9]

The official church response was something along the lines of "The Book of Mormon the musical might entertain you for a night, but the Book of Mormon,"—the book as scripture—"will change your life through Jesus." Which we actually completely agree with. The Mormon church's response to this musical is almost like our Q.E.D. at the end of it. That's a cool, American response to a ribbing—a big musical that's done in their name. Before the church responded, a lot of people would ask us, "Are you afraid of what the church would say?" And Trey and I were like, "They're going to be cool." And they were like, "No, they're not. There are going to be protests." And we were like, "Nope, they're going to be cool." We weren't that surprised by the church's response. We had faith in them.

Also, Parker and Stone have received death threats for their depiction of Mohammed in South Park
 
Re: Two Shot at Muhammad Art Exhibit in Texas [W:439, 529]

Two shot dead outside Muhammad Art Exhibit in Garland

This was at a facility in Garland, Texas, near Dallas.

I gather this was an exhibit of artwork that depicts Muhammad, a la Charlie Hebdo, in defiance of radical Muslims and in affirmation of freedom of speech.

Two guys drove up armed with guns and explosives, opened fire, and were killed straight away by return fire.

It's a bad idea to go gunning for any group of Texans without a lot of firepower.


The idiots drove 1000 miles to the event just to prove that an AR-15 in the hands of an idiot is not as dangerous as a 9mm in the hands of trained professionals.
 
Re: Shooting at Muhammad Art Exhibit in Texas

Here is how free speech works with a real not-insane religion when you poke fun at it: Also, Parker and Stone have received death threats for their depiction of Mohammed in South Park
The Mormons have demonstrated how a truly sophisticated and intelligent people should respond to criticism or farce, one far removed from many of the barbarians attached to Islam. Perhaps this approach will rub off on some of the more 'moderate' Muslims.
 
Re: Shooting at Muhammad Art Exhibit in Texas

My favorite coyote lure simulates the sound of an injured rabbit, and man does it bring them in. If I was worried about jihadists in my area I'd probably use cartoons and an elevated position. Better to draw them out then to wait and wonder.
 
Back
Top Bottom