• 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: Shooting at Muhammad Art Exhibit in Texas

What's wrong with you. I've repeated often enough my opposition to public/government censorship of anybody's 1st amendment right. So stop asserting such foolishness. I've suggested that reasonable people censor themselves regularly, not wishing to gratuitously offend the sensibilities of others. That's what separates ladies and gentlemen from bigots and haters. The only benefit one gets from drawing ridiculing cartoons of Mohamed is the satisfaction of antagonising a hated group. Again, knock yourselves out and accept the consequences.

No, you're just not getting it. You have failed the test. You don't support and defend free speech. Period.

Free speech is offensive speech. That's why it has to be defended.

You certainly seem offensive enough on these forums, calling people all sorts of nasty names. Why is it that you are not censoring yourself?
 
Re: Shooting at Muhammad Art Exhibit in Texas

No, you're just not getting it. You have failed the test. You don't support and defend free speech. Period.

Free speech is offensive speech. That's why it has to be defended.

You certainly seem offensive enough on these forums, calling people all sorts of nasty names. Why is it that you are not censoring yourself?

If DP can operate a policy of Don't Be A Jerk successfully, without any infringement of our ability to say what we want, why can't Geller?
 
Re: Shooting at Muhammad Art Exhibit in Texas

No, you're just not getting it. You have failed the test. You don't support and defend free speech. Period.

Free speech is offensive speech. That's why it has to be defended.

You certainly seem offensive enough on these forums, calling people all sorts of nasty names. Why is it that you are not censoring yourself?

Defending the right to spout off offensive speech and defending the speech itself are two different things. One can both criticize speech and defend the right to say it.
 
Re: Shooting at Muhammad Art Exhibit in Texas

If DP can operate a policy of Don't Be A Jerk successfully, without any infringement of our ability to say what we want, why can't Geller?
Why can you? Why can't anyone?

Because the First Amendment allows the American people to be jerks, and that includes Pamella Geller..
 
Re: Shooting at Muhammad Art Exhibit in Texas

Defending the right to spout off offensive speech and defending the speech itself are two different things. One can both criticize speech and defend the right to say it.
Great!! Then you'll now defend her right to say whatever she wants. Happy you came to your senses!
 
Re: Shooting at Muhammad Art Exhibit in Texas

If DP can operate a policy of Don't Be A Jerk successfully, without any infringement of our ability to say what we want, why can't Geller?

actually DP can and does infringe our speech but since its a private forum that does not raise governmental ramifications. If someone on the streets of NYC were to call you something rude the government cannot punish them. If someone says the same thing in this thread, DP can and will impose infractions and may well ban them from posting here
 
Re: Shooting at Muhammad Art Exhibit in Texas

Great!! Then you'll now defend her right to say whatever she wants. Happy you came to your senses!

I've never NOT defended her right to say what she wants.
 
Re: Shooting at Muhammad Art Exhibit in Texas

I've never NOT defended her right to say what she wants.
No, you just consistently attacked her personally for exercising her rights under the first amendment while your criticism of the Islamists has been 'muted'. I think we're all familiar with the "yes, but" arguments being displayed here and you don't need to explain your position further.
 
Re: Shooting at Muhammad Art Exhibit in Texas

No, you just consistently attacked her personally for exercising her rights under the first amendment while your criticism of the Islamists has been 'muted'. I think we're all familiar with the "yes, but" arguments being displayed here and you don't need to explain your position further.

See the sig, hoss. There's no "no" about it. At NO POINT have I said she doesn't have the right to say what she wants. Your claims to the contrary are a bald-faced lie.
 
Re: Shooting at Muhammad Art Exhibit in Texas

See the sig, hoss. There's no "no" about it. At NO POINT have I said she doesn't have the right to say what she wants. Your claims to the contrary are a bald-faced lie.
I didnt claim otherwise. But Pamela Geller is one small speck in the scheme of things, she is a side issue in a much larger picture and that's what the leftists either ignore or can't see. You and the rest still don't seem to understand that this is not about P. Geller!
 
Re: Shooting at Muhammad Art Exhibit in Texas

I didnt claim otherwise. But Pamela Geller is one small speck in the scheme of things, she is a side issue in a much larger picture and that's what the leftists either ignore or can't see. You and the rest still don't seem to understand that this is not about P. Geller!

She is a side issue; however, side issues deserve their moment in the sun.

I have been CRYSTAL CLEAR on my issues with radical Islam. I don't have to couch it with every post.
 
Re: Shooting at Muhammad Art Exhibit in Texas

She is a side issue; however, side issues deserve their moment in the sun.

I have been CRYSTAL CLEAR on my issues with radical Islam. I don't have to couch it with every post.

Kobie, you often say this, but most often I see you defending terrorists or statists.

Think about what crystal clear means.
 
Moderator's Warning:
4th and last mod warning. No more personal comments directed at each other, please address the topic only. Do not address other posters by name to bait and troll. There will be zero tolerance going forward. Thanks.
 
Re: Shooting at Muhammad Art Exhibit in Texas

Kobie, you often say this, but most often I see you defending terrorists or statists.

Think about what crystal clear means.

Given that a mod warning just dropped, I'm dropping it too.

I've never once defended a terrorist, and I defy you to prove me wrong. And your definition of "statist" is clearly different than mine, and to equate "Terrorist" with "Statist" is pretty dishonest of you.

Since we're on mod warning number FOUR on this thread (I don't remember ever seeing that many in one thread), I'm taking my leave.
 
Re: Shooting at Muhammad Art Exhibit in Texas

Speech has restrictions in America. I wouldn't expect you to understand that.

Hah, so you ARE saying that it should be "restricted". Hilarious.

And I seem to understand free speech much better than you do.
 
Re: Shooting at Muhammad Art Exhibit in Texas

Hah, so you ARE saying that it should be "restricted". Hilarious.

And I seem to understand free speech much better than you do.

Is free speech restricted in Israel?

I can't imagine a Geller-type being allowed to do in Israel what she did in Texas ?
 
Re: Shooting at Muhammad Art Exhibit in Texas

Is speech restricted in Israel?

I can't imagine a Geller-type being allowed to do in Israel what she did in Texas ?

Why not? Unless it's incitement to violence or incitement to racism it's completely legal to mock any religion or any other set of beliefs.

One should never fear consequences for making fun of other peoples' ideas and beliefs, even when they are referred to as 'religion'.
 
Re: Shooting at Muhammad Art Exhibit in Texas

The right to freedom of speech is, like all rights and freedoms, not unlimited and absolute. But it should be limited only by the most necessary and obviously reasonable restrictions, i.e. restrictions having to do with direct calls for violence or other serious crimes; libel and slander against individual persons; treason.

That is the ideal. Obviously every country is different and many make choices according to their specific circumstances. But in principle, any infringement of freedom of speech, except for the above-mentioned logical limits, is to be deplored.
 
Re: Shooting at Muhammad Art Exhibit in Texas

Why not? Unless it's incitement to violence or incitement to racism it's completely legal to mock any religion or any other set of beliefs.

One should never fear consequences for making fun of other peoples' ideas and beliefs, even when they are referred to as 'religion'.

I'm not willing to sacrifice one American for the right of any Gellers to do what she is doing while we are at war with terrorists.

You know better than I that Geller could have provoked a mass murder by terrorists.

You also know better than I Geller has radicalized home-grown terrorists, something that must be avoided .
 
Re: Shooting at Muhammad Art Exhibit in Texas

I'm not willing to sacrifice one American for the right of any Gellers to do what she is doing while we are at war with terrorists.

You know better than I that Geller could have provoked a mass murder by terrorists.

You also know better than I Geller has radicalized home-grown terrorists, something that must be avoided .

So basically you argue that jihadi terrorist should dictate what freedoms Americans should have and what not.
 
Re: Shooting at Muhammad Art Exhibit in Texas

I'm not willing to sacrifice one American for the right of any Gellers to do what she is doing while we are at war with terrorists.

You know better than I that Geller could have provoked a mass murder by terrorists.

You also know better than I Geller has radicalized home-grown terrorists, something that must be avoided .

If you'd swap Islamic terrorists with Christian terrorists, would it make sense to you?
Would it make sense to simply outlaw the mockery of Jesus if you knew that it often gets radical Christians up in arms? So no comedian could make jokes about Jesus and the cross and Mary the virgin and whatnot without fearing a radical Christian launching an armed assault on his comedy club?
What about Scientology? Judaism? Buddhism?

Sometimes people will be attacked for practicing their freedoms, that doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed to practice them, it simply means that more should be done to prevent these attacks from happening. I myself find Geller's actions to be repulsive since I believe she's doing it with an obvious intention to provoke radical Islamists and I find it highly unnecessary, but it's entirely her freedom to do so and it should remain this way because once we as a society decide to forbid people from doing something that offends one group of people because they reply by armed assaults then what stops other people with radical views from doing the same to create a similar situation when no one mocks their views too?

I completely understand your position and your willingness to see these attacks stop, but giving in to the threatening party's demands isn't going to make them stop, it would merely let them know that what they're doing is working and encourage them to do it more often.
 
Re: Shooting at Muhammad Art Exhibit in Texas

If DP can operate a policy of Don't Be A Jerk successfully, without any infringement of our ability to say what we want, why can't Geller?

We have seen many times how through the alchemy of liberal-speak simple criticism of Obama's policies is called "racism" and any criticism of radical Muslims and the imposition of sharia law is called "hate speech". So it is with Geller. By your lights she can't say anything at all no matter how valid it might be. In Garland she was standing up for the right to free speech in support of others like the editors of Charlie Hebdo, and yet you call it hateful. That's why we can't let people like you tell us what is and is not valid speech.
 
Re: Shooting at Muhammad Art Exhibit in Texas

We have seen many times how through the alchemy of liberal-speak simple criticism of Obama's policies is called "racism" and any criticism of radical Muslims and the imposition of sharia law is called "hate speech". So it is with Geller. By your lights she can't say anything at all no matter how valid it might be.
When she does say something valid, I'll take a view.

In Garland she was standing up for the right to free speech in support of others like the editors of Charlie Hebdo, and yet you call it hateful. That's why we can't let people like you tell us what is and is not valid speech.

What she was doing in Garland was looking to provoke a response that would justify her prejudices and, given that the people she was provoking are even more brain-dead and fanatically prejudiced than she is, she got it. Bravo! Of course to her, the fact that the method she used to provoke was also deeply insulting to the vast majority of peaceful, law-abiding Moslems doesn't bother her in the slightest, and that's because she hates peaceful, law-abiding Moslems as much as she hates the violent extremist ones. See it's not about a hatred of violence and extremism for her, it's about a hatred of Islam.
 
Back
Top Bottom