• 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

Montecresto said:
It's not a call. If you incite violence, you will fall victim to it. Its a logical observation. So if your "right" to offend the sensibilities of an entire religious group are that important to you, join Geller, and accept the risk of reprisal for your "freedom".
Click to expand...

You can try to weasel your way out of what you wrote like the coward and liar that you are. You are nothing but a bigot and an apologist for the most heinous terrorists. I despise you and will not respond to you anymore.
 
Re: Shooting at Muhammad Art Exhibit in Texas

Apocalypse said:
I understand it perfectly fine, very unlike you considering the insanely ignorant remarks you've been making here.
Please do refer to how the American constitution or American law in general restricts free speech in the case of the mockery of a religion, either do so or admit you have no idea what you're talking about.
Click to expand...

So, as I pointed out, you're unaware of unprotected speech in America.
 
Re: Shooting at Muhammad Art Exhibit in Texas

Apocalypse said:
If anyone ever needed a proof to the ridiculous immorality of your positions I think this statement here would do the work.
Click to expand...

You're denying that there will be more violence if Geller continues to provoke the sensitivities of Muslims?
 
Last edited:
Re: Shooting at Muhammad Art Exhibit in Texas

Montecresto said:
So, as I pointed out, you're unaware of unprotected speech in America.
Click to expand...

I asked you to come up with a reference to where in American law is the freedom of speech restricted when it comes to the mockery of religion.
You've failed to make that reference. You've failed miserably at creating your argument. You have no argument at all.
What a buffoon.
 
Re: Shooting at Muhammad Art Exhibit in Texas

LeoVlaming said:
You can try to weasel your way out of what you wrote like the coward and liar that you are. You are nothing but a bigot and an apologist for the most heinous terrorists. I despise you and will not respond to you anymore.
Click to expand...

No wiggling, put up, or shut up. If your going to insist on your brand of morality, then join Geller's gratuitous provocation to the Muslim faith and accept the risks.
 
Re: Shooting at Muhammad Art Exhibit in Texas

Apocalypse said:
I asked you to come up with a reference to where in American law is the freedom of speech restricted when it comes to the mockery of religion.
You've failed to make that reference. You've failed miserably at creating your argument. You have no argument at all.
What a buffoon.
Click to expand...

In America, which again I wouldn't expect you to understand, we have unprotected speech.
 
Re: Shooting at Muhammad Art Exhibit in Texas

Montecresto said:
Your denying that there will be more violence if Geller continues to provoke the sensitivities of Muslims?
Click to expand...

I hardly see the relevancy of your silly question to the legality of the subject.
Either refer to where in American law it is restricted to mock religion or move along.
 
Re: Shooting at Muhammad Art Exhibit in Texas

Montecresto said:
In America, which again I wouldn't expect you to understand, we have unprotected speech.
Click to expand...

Attempt #3 at getting Montecresto to back up his ignorant claims;

Either put a reference to how the mockery of religion falls under unprotected speech or move along.
 
Re: Shooting at Muhammad Art Exhibit in Texas

Montecresto said:
Your denying that there will be more violence if Geller continues to provoke the sensitivities of Muslims?
Click to expand...

Everything provokes the sensitivity of Muslims. When those who are steeped in a totalitarian ideology viciously opposed to free thought meet with any resistance, the notion that their ideology can be questioned is met with violence.

What he is saying is that your people's violent reactions should not limit the ability to oppose the vicious intolerance of your ideology.
 
Re: Shooting at Muhammad Art Exhibit in Texas

Montecresto said:
No wiggling, put up, or shut up. If your going to insist on your brand of morality, then join Geller's gratuitous provocation to the Muslim faith and accept the risks.
Click to expand...

For individual liberty? With pleasure. Though I disagree with what she says, to the death her right to say it deserves defense.
 
Re: Shooting at Muhammad Art Exhibit in Texas

Apocalypse said:
Attempt #3 at getting Montecresto to back up his ignorant claims;

Either put a reference to how the mockery of religion falls under unprotected speech or move along.
Click to expand...

Do you have some special authority to excuse people from debate, hmm? Other than your own hate for Muslims, why do you support gratuitously offending the religion. And why would you support inciting violence as we saw in Garland last week. For your satisfaction of having offended Muslim sensibilities???
 
Re: Shooting at Muhammad Art Exhibit in Texas

cpwill said:
For individual liberty? With pleasure. Though I disagree with what she says, to the death her right to say it deserves defense.
Click to expand...

I don't see any space between us, if you've looked back over 150 pages to see everything I've said on this. This could however be successfully argued as unprotected speech as per its incitement of violence.
 
Re: Shooting at Muhammad Art Exhibit in Texas

Montecresto said:
Do you have some special authority to excuse people from debate, hmm? Other than your own hate for Muslims, why do you support gratuitously offending the religion. And why would you support inciting violence as we saw in Garland last week. For your satisfaction of having offended Muslim sensibilities???
Click to expand...

You are not debating. You are merely making many stupid statements trying to rationalize the suppression of free speech.

.....and if I can dare speak anything smacking of truth here, you have even gone so far as to suggest the death of another poster in your eagerness to support the Islamist agenda.
 
Re: Shooting at Muhammad Art Exhibit in Texas

Gardener said:
Everything provokes the sensitivity of Muslims. When those who are steeped in a totalitarian ideology viciously opposed to free thought meet with any resistance, the notion that their ideology can be questioned is met with violence.

What he is saying is that your people's violent reactions should not limit the ability to oppose the vicious intolerance of your ideology.
Click to expand...

Hyperbole.
 
Re: Shooting at Muhammad Art Exhibit in Texas

Gardener said:
You are not debating. You are merely making many stupid statements trying to rationalize the suppression of free speech.

.....and if I can dare speak anything smacking of truth here, you have even gone so far as to suggest the death of another poster in your eagerness to support the Islamist agenda.
Click to expand...

I have suggested that another poster put his money and mouth in the same location with Geller next time. Do you think there won't be violence at the next Geller "event"?
 
Re: Shooting at Muhammad Art Exhibit in Texas

Montecresto said:
Do you have some special authority to excuse people from debate, hmm?
Click to expand...

Why? Because I told you to either back up your claims or move along? Why just a moment ago you posted this:

Montecresto said:
Yes, OF COURSE it most definitely is restricted. You do not understand free speech in America, stop talking about it.
Click to expand...

And this:

Montecresto said:
No wiggling, put up, or shut up. If your going to insist on your brand of morality, then join Geller's gratuitous provocation to the Muslim faith and accept the risks.
Click to expand...

So you're not only an horrible poster in the sense that you refuse to back up your baseless assertions, you're also quite the hypocrite.

Now I'll say it again, either put a reference that shows the mockery of religion is unprotected speech or move along.

Other than your own hate for Muslims
Click to expand...

Wow. I never talked about Muslims in this thread but suddenly I hate them. You're quite the pathetic one aren't you.

why do you support gratuitously offending the religion. And why would you support inciting violence as we saw in Garland last week. For your satisfaction of having offended Muslim sensibilities???
Click to expand...

I don't support her actions but I believe in democracy and I believe in free speech. If you oppose free speech then I don't know what you're doing in America. Secondly her actions do not constitute as "inciting to violence" - that's pretty much outright lying. I don't remember reading on any calls for violence from the event. If you believe otherwise put a reference or move along.
 
Re: Shooting at Muhammad Art Exhibit in Texas

Montecresto said:
I don't see any space between us, if you've looked back over 150 pages to see everything I've said on this. This could however be successfully argued as unprotected speech as per its incitement of violence.
Click to expand...

The honest and intelligent people among us realize that the word "incitement" is not defined by the overreactions of violent, thin-skinned totalitarians attempting to suppress free speech, but by whether any actual incitement to violence occurred.

If Geller rounded up the troops and told them to go burn down some mosques or shoot your people, she would be guilty of incitement. Saying things you people do not want to hear is not incitement simply because you support violence in your attempt to suppress it.
 
Last edited:
Re: Shooting at Muhammad Art Exhibit in Texas

Apocalypse said:
Why? Because I told you to either back up your claims or move along? Why just a moment ago you posted this:



And this:



So you're not only an horrible poster in the sense that you refuse to back up your baseless assertions, you're also quite the hypocrite.

Now I'll say it again, either put a reference that shows the mockery of religion is unprotected speech or move along.



Wow. I never talked about Muslims in this thread but suddenly I hate them. You're quite the pathetic one aren't you.



I don't support her actions but I believe in democracy and I believe in free speech. If you oppose free speech then I don't know what you're doing in America. Secondly her actions do not constitute as "inciting to violence" - that's pretty much outright lying. I don't remember reading on any calls for violence from the event. If you believe otherwise put a reference or move along.
Click to expand...

I don't oppose free speech. You came late to the debate and think you're up to speed, I oppose reckless speech, and gratuitously offensive speech, and Geller's brand of speech that serves no other purpose than to anger an entire group of people! That you support it is very telling of your own character.
 
Re: Shooting at Muhammad Art Exhibit in Texas

Gardener said:
The honest and intelligent people among us realize that the word "incitement" is not defined by the overreactions by violent, thin-skinned totalitarians attempting to suppress free speech, but by whether any actual incitement to violence occurred.

If Geller rounded up the troops and told them to go burn down some mosques or shoot your people, she would be guilty of incitement. Saying things you people do not want to hear is not incitement simply because you support violence in your attempt to suppress it.
Click to expand...

Geller's gratuitous provocation incited violence, unless you think it was the color of her dress that offended.
 
Re: Shooting at Muhammad Art Exhibit in Texas

Gardener said:
Everything provokes the sensitivity of Muslims. When those who are steeped in a totalitarian ideology viciously opposed to free thought meet with any resistance, the notion that their ideology can be questioned is met with violence.

What he is saying is that your people's violent reactions should not limit the ability to oppose the vicious intolerance of your ideology.
Click to expand...
Good to see you back!
 
Re: Shooting at Muhammad Art Exhibit in Texas

Montecresto said:
I don't oppose free speech. You came late to the debate and think you're up to speed, I oppose reckless speech, and gratuitously offensive speech, and Geller's brand of speech that serves no other purpose than to anger an entire group of people! That you support it is very telling of your own character.
Click to expand...

You do oppose freedom of speech and we have plenty of comments in this thread to base that assertion on. Namely the comments that are referring to the mockery of religion as something that "falls under unprotected speech" and thus should be restricted by the law.

That I support free speech is very telling of my character, you are correct in pointing that out, and I am correct in pointing out that the way you oppose free speech is very telling of your character, as well as the way you feel the need to wish posters you disagree with to "get the bullet".
 
Re: Shooting at Muhammad Art Exhibit in Texas

Apocalypse said:
You do oppose freedom of speech and we have plenty of comments in this thread to base that assertion on. Namely the comments that are referring to the mockery of religion as something that "falls under unprotected speech" and thus should be restricted by the law.

That I support free speech is very telling of my character, you are correct in pointing that out, and I am correct in pointing out that the way you oppose free speech is very telling of your character, as well as the way you feel the need to wish posters you disagree with to "get the bullet".
Click to expand...

That's like saying that DP opposes free speech because they won't allow me to call you what you are. :roll: Due to your intellectual laziness, you won't read through these 160 pages to see what my position is. Instead you inject a strawman, and then demand once, twice, three times that I respond to it. That's failed debate young man. While Geller's right to her ignorant and irresponsible hate that she hides behind her constitutional liberties has been acknowledged by me, I have consistently pointed out its failure and imprudence. I've also pointed out that American courts have placed limitations on speech, and that it could be argued that Geller's speech does fall under those limitations, but pointed out that until such argument is made in court, it will just remain stupid, gratuitously provocative and irresponsible speech. All of which you would know if you weren't so damn lazy, and intellectually dishonest.
 
Re: Shooting at Muhammad Art Exhibit in Texas

Montecresto said:
That's like saying that DP opposes free speech because they won't allow me to call you what you are. :roll: Due to your intellectual laziness, you won't read through these 160 pages to see what my position is. Instead you inject a strawman, and then demand once, twice, three times that I respond to it. That's failed debate young man. While Geller's right to her ignorant and irresponsible hate that she hides behind her constitutional liberties has been acknowledged by me, I have consistently pointed out its failure and imprudence. I've also pointed out that American courts have placed limitations on speech, and that it could be argued that Geller's speech does fall under those limitations, but pointed out that until such argument is made in court, it will just remain stupid, gratuitously provocative and irresponsible speech. All of which you would know if you weren't so damn lazy, and intellectually dishonest.
Click to expand...
If you had directed these remarks against a Muslim they could be justified in killing you and those who happen to be in your vicinity.
 
Re: Shooting at Muhammad Art Exhibit in Texas

Montecresto said:
I don't see any space between us, if you've looked back over 150 pages to see everything I've said on this. This could however be successfully argued as unprotected speech as per its incitement of violence.
Click to expand...

Nope. Saying something that others find offensive isn't incitement to violence, and doing so is no more "unprotected" than the idiots on facebook stomping on American flags.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom