• 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]

X Factor said:
What difference should the level of antagonistism make though? You're making big issue of the distinction so it must impact you in a way I'm not understanding, so I'm asking.
Click to expand...

Sending someone junkmail isn't the same thing as taking a dump on their lawn, even if they are both annoying.
 
X Factor said:
What difference should the level of antagonistism make though?
Click to expand...

It should make a HUGE difference in relation to how people treat or talk about said antagonism, which is what my first post was responding to.

Let's take a trip down memory lane to the far away time of just around 30 minutes and roughly 12 posts ago and look at what I was responding to:

Josie said:
X Factor said:
It's interesting reading some of the earlier comments in this thread, complete with the suggestion that offending Islamists comes with a nearly understandable "consequence" of potential danger and death. I am curious if the same people think the same way about the shooting in Florida. If people are gong to flaunt their gayness knowing that radical Islamists are offended by it, is what happened in Florida just a "consequence" as well?
Click to expand...

Good point. People said Pamela Geller was partly at fault because she flaunted her Draw Muhammad contest in their faces and baited radical Muslims. What other things make radical Muslims mad and "bait" them into violence? Being gay, being a Christian, being Jewish, feminism, women in charge, Muslims who refuse to believe as they do, women who have pre-martial sex, women who show their ankles......
Click to expand...

Josie's comment about your comment. And what were they both doing? Talking about peoples reactions to the victimized groups and attempt to assert them as being equal and analogous things. That "flaunting their gayness" was similar to the muhammed drawing event. That "Being Gay" was the same bait as the "Draw Muhammad" contest.

And yes, I was making an issue out of the distinction between those two things, because there is a huge distinction. As I did when I referenced the event in North Carolina where the Trump protester got punched.

Or how about another hot topic, Rape.

In one instance a woman goes out to the bar with a bunch of her female friends, gets roofied, pulled away from her friends when they're distracted and then raped in a back alley.

In one instance a woman goes out to the bar by herself, drinks until she's ****faced and passing out, and then gets into the car with a complete stranger who offered to drive her home, and ends up raping her.

In neither case is the rape justified. In neither case is the woman at fault for the rape itself. But if you're going to sit here and tell me with a straight face that their level of responsibility that night, and the level of risk they choose to take with their actions, were comparable and should be treated or talked about in the same way then you're kidding yourself.

Based on the logic you all are employing right now, I'd be sitting here saying "Hey, they're both at a bar and have a vagina, which you know makes you a target for a rapist. What's the difference?! If you even suggest there's a difference you SUPPORT RAPE!!!!!!"!

No, in neither case were the savages who perpetrated/attempt to perpetrate these horrific acts in any way justified. And you can go back in this thread and likely find me saying that very thing. HOWEVER, the level of antagonism, the level of risk they were entering into, and the level of condemnation for the needlessness or recklessness of their own actions between these two events are MASSIVELY different. And attempting to equate them as equal, and trying to act as if they should have similar or equal responses, is ludicrous.
 
Zyphlin said:
It should make a HUGE difference in relation to how people treat or talk about said antagonism, which is what my first post was responding to.

Let's take a trip down memory lane to the far away time of just around 30 minutes and roughly 12 posts ago and look at what I was responding to:



Josie's comment about your comment. And what were they both doing? Talking about peoples reactions to the victimized groups and attempt to assert them as being equal and analogous things. That "flaunting their gayness" was similar to the muhammed drawing event. That "Being Gay" was the same bait as the "Draw Muhammad" contest.

And yes, I was making an issue out of the distinction between those two things, because there is a huge distinction. As I did when I referenced the event in North Carolina where the Trump protester got punched.

Or how about another hot topic, Rape.

In one instance a woman goes out to the bar with a bunch of her female friends, gets roofied, pulled away from her friends when they're distracted and then raped in a back alley.

In one instance a woman goes out to the bar by herself, drinks until she's ****faced and passing out, and then gets into the car with a complete stranger who offered to drive her home, and ends up raping her.

In neither case is the rape justified. In neither case is the woman at fault for the rape itself. But if you're going to sit here and tell me with a straight face that their level of responsibility that night, and the level of risk they choose to take with their actions, were comparable and should be treated or talked about in the same way then you're kidding yourself.

Based on the logic you all are employing right now, I'd be sitting here saying "Hey, they're both at a bar and have a vagina, which you know makes you a target for a rapist. What's the difference?! If you even suggest there's a difference you SUPPORT RAPE!!!!!!"!

No, in neither case were the savages who perpetrated/attempt to perpetrate these horrific acts in any way justified. And you can go back in this thread and likely find me saying that very thing. HOWEVER, the level of antagonism, the level of risk they were entering into, and the level of condemnation for the needlessness or recklessness of their own actions between these two events are MASSIVELY different. And attempting to equate them as equal, and trying to act as if they should have similar or equal responses, is ludicrous.
Click to expand...

There's nothing reckless about exercising your first amendment right to draw Muhammed unless this country has turned into Saudi Arabia.
 
Zyphlin said:
It should make a HUGE difference in relation to how people treat or talk about said antagonism, which is what my first post was responding to.

Let's take a trip down memory lane to the far away time of just around 30 minutes and roughly 12 posts ago and look at what I was responding to:



Josie's comment about your comment. And what were they both doing? Talking about peoples reactions to the victimized groups and attempt to assert them as being equal and analogous things. That "flaunting their gayness" was similar to the muhammed drawing event. That "Being Gay" was the same bait as the "Draw Muhammad" contest.

And yes, I was making an issue out of the distinction between those two things, because there is a huge distinction. As I did when I referenced the event in North Carolina where the Trump protester got punched.

Or how about another hot topic, Rape.

In one instance a woman goes out to the bar with a bunch of her female friends, gets roofied, pulled away from her friends when they're distracted and then raped in a back alley.

In one instance a woman goes out to the bar by herself, drinks until she's ****faced and passing out, and then gets into the car with a complete stranger who offered to drive her home, and ends up raping her.

In neither case is the rape justified. In neither case is the woman at fault for the rape itself. But if you're going to sit here and tell me with a straight face that their level of responsibility that night, and the level of risk they choose to take with their actions, were comparable and should be treated or talked about in the same way then you're kidding yourself.

Based on the logic you all are employing right now, I'd be sitting here saying "Hey, they're both at a bar and have a vagina, which you know makes you a target for a rapist. What's the difference?! If you even suggest there's a difference you SUPPORT RAPE!!!!!!"!

No, in neither case were the savages who perpetrated/attempt to perpetrate these horrific acts in any way justified. And you can go back in this thread and likely find me saying that very thing. HOWEVER, the level of antagonism, the level of risk they were entering into, and the level of condemnation for the needlessness or recklessness of their own actions between these two events are MASSIVELY different. And attempting to equate them as equal, and trying to act as if they should have similar or equal responses, is ludicrous.
Click to expand...

Could not disagree with your conclusion more. I think the response to terrorism should be the same and not depend on who the victims or potential victims are, but then I feel the same way about rape.
 
X Factor said:
Could not disagree with your conclusion more. I think the response to terrorism should be the same and not depend on who the victims or potential victims are, but then I feel the same way about rape.
Click to expand...

So if Dylan Roof or James Holmes goes to prison and news comes out that they were raped in prison...you would treat that no different and feel the exact same way and respond the exact same way as you would about the girl recently in the trial out in California?

If a Shia insurgent group began conducting terrorist strikes against ISIS held cities, believing them to be infidels following a wrongful caliphate, you would condemn that equally and with the same response as you do to ISIS terrorism like what happened in Orlando?
 
reinoe said:
There's nothing reckless about exercising your first amendment right to draw Muhammed unless this country has turned into Saudi Arabia.
Click to expand...

Right.

And if I'm exercising my first amendment right to speak the words "I'd totally **** that chick blind"......it is no more reckless to do that directly in front of her and her muscle bound intoxicated boyfriend than it is for me to say it about a woman on TV while sitting around with a bunch of friends...right?

Or else where' living in Saudi Arabia or some ****. Because apparently hatred of Islam makes people go bonkers as it relates to absolutes and black and white view points of things.
 
Last edited:
X Factor said:
Could not disagree with your conclusion more. I think the response to terrorism should be the same and not depend on who the victims or potential victims are, but then I feel the same way about rape.
Click to expand...


I've said for years that I agree with Golda Meir on this. "When peace comes we will perhaps in time be able to forgive the Arabs for killing our sons, but it will be harder for us to forgive them for having forced us to kill their sons. "

And...

"Peace will come when the Arabs will love their children more than they hate us."


Nuff said.

Tim-
 
Zyphlin said:
No. I say that as if there's a difference between engaging in something you know offends them, but your engaging in it has ZERO to do with offending them....and engaging in something you know offends them, but your engaging in it has significantly to do with offending them.
Click to expand...

Your distinction is pointless with regard to the the Radical Muslims.


Let me give you a flip side analogy....

Fundamentalist Christians are offended by taking the lords name in vain.

There's a massive difference though between someone who's going through their normal routine day and says "Jesus H. Christ" when upset by something, not realizing there's a fundamentalist Christian within earshot and....

....putting up a giant sign outside of a fundamentalist church that says "JESUS ****ING CHRIST".

While both "offends" said group, one is clearly being done with the intent or at least some level of purpose to offend (Be it to actually offend, or make a point about the offense) while the other is likely not even thinking about the fact that it may offend someone.

Are people seriously trying to act like there's not levels to antagonization? Why do people get ****ing ridiculously on this stupid black and white kick anytime it fits their narrow little political agendas, but when it doesn't all of a sudden they see all kinds of grey.
Click to expand...


If someone shot a person for having a "JESUS ****ING CHRIST" sign it wouldn't be the fault of the sign holder in any way. But your analogy really doesn't work because in your analogy there is no murder, it is just antagonizing and hurt feelings. I see things in the Religion and Abortion threads on DP that offends me all the time, and they are meant to offend me.

In the end, for the two instances to meet your argument, is we shouldn't have art shows that run afoul of Islamic law, and gays should stay in the closet for fear of antagonizing Muslims.
 
jmotivator said:
it wouldn't be the fault of the sign holder in any way. .
Click to expand...

Which is entirely irrelevant to anything I've said, as nothing I've said what so ever assigned any fault to the victims for the crime committed against them. So if you'd like to actually respond to what I posted instead of the strawman you've created, how about you try again.
 
Oh FFS!

I'm really not terribly concerned that something which is guaranteed by the Constitution, and is indeed supported by most any modern Western nation and people, offends some backwards thinking and backwards believing Theocratic fundamentalists group of people.

Hey guys! If you don't like it, don't look at it. Especially so for those of you who've decided to emigrate outside of your own country. FFS. When in Rome already.
 
eohrnberger said:
Oh FFS!

I'm really not terribly concerned that something which is guaranteed by the Constitution, and is indeed supported by most any modern Western nation and people, offends some backwards thinking and backwards believing Theocratic fundamentalists group of people.

Hey guys! If you don't like it, don't look at it. Especially so for those of you who've decided to emigrate outside of your own country. FFS. When in Rome already.
Click to expand...

"When the immigrants bring everything from there, to here, it doesn't take long for here to become there" --Andrew Wilkow
 
jmotivator said:
Your distinction is pointless with regard to the the Radical Muslims.





If someone shot a person for having a "JESUS ****ING CHRIST" sign it wouldn't be the fault of the sign holder in any way. But your analogy really doesn't work because in your analogy there is no murder, it is just antagonizing and hurt feelings. I see things in the Religion and Abortion threads on DP that offends me all the time, and they are meant to offend me.

In the end, for the two instances to meet your argument, is we shouldn't have art shows that run afoul of Islamic law, and gays should stay in the closet for fear of antagonizing Muslims.
Click to expand...

I feel like you're refusing to acknowledge any distinction between self-expression and going out of your way to offend someone on purpose.
 
X Factor said:
It's interesting reading some of the earlier comments in this thread, complete with the suggestion that offending Islamists comes with a nearly understandable "consequence" of potential danger and death. I am curious if the same people think the same way about the shooting in Florida. If people are gong to flaunt their gayness knowing that radical Islamists are offended by it, is what happened in Florida just a "consequence" as well?
Click to expand...

in a place cordoned off specifically for that purpose so that radical muslims can avoid it and NOT be offended, "flaunt their gayness" is a damn offensive way to put it. How would you like it if i said christians who are butchered in church were flaunting their faith?

Gay people cannot enjoy life to fullest while hiding in terror from everyone who takes offense. This is why hate crime legislation exists (well, not in florida). It's totally different from going out of your way to draw a cartoon intended specifically to antagonize. No one is compelled to do that just to have a fulfilling life. Should they have the freedom to without fear? Absolutely. But the 'provocation' element is totally different

In every tragedy we try to assign some ranking of the innocence of victims. Sandy hook obviously drew outrage because the victims were kids. On the flip side, after an arson on a gay bar in the 1970s killed 32, no one including the media gave a damn. Families wouldn't even claim the bodies out of shame. It shouldn't surprise you that an emotion like sympathy hinges on the degree we consider (however misguided) the victims to share responsibility, and the value we hold for the victims' lives
 
chromium said:
in a place cordoned off specifically for that purpose so that radical muslims can avoid it and NOT be offended, "flaunt their gayness" is a damn offensive way to put it. How would you like it if i said christians who are butchered in church were flaunting their faith?
Click to expand...

Nothing you would say in such an event would actually surprise me (well, unless you actually condemned it unconditionally).

Gay people cannot enjoy life to fullest while hiding in terror from everyone who takes offense. This is why hate crime legislation exists (well, not in florida). It's totally different from going out of your way to draw a cartoon intended specifically to antagonize. No one is compelled to do that just to have a fulfilling life. Should they have the freedom to without fear? Absolutely. But the 'provocation' element is totally different

In every tragedy we try to assign some ranking of the innocence of victims. Sandy hook obviously drew outrage because the victims were kids. On the flip side, after an arson on a gay bar in the 1970s killed 32, no one including the media gave a damn. Families wouldn't even claim the bodies out of shame. It shouldn't surprise you that an emotion like sympathy hinges on the degree we consider (however misguided) the victims to share responsibility, and the value we hold for the victims' lives
Click to expand...

This is rich considering you gave me **** the other day for lamenting the death of Christians.
 
X Factor said:
Nothing you would say in such an event would actually surprise me (well, unless you actually condemned it unconditionally).
Click to expand...

whatever, you would be all over me for that, and i'm no longer going to make any effort to convince you that you're wrong

X Factor said:
This is rich considering you gave me **** the other day for lamenting the death of Christians.
Click to expand...

so you are entitled to feel admiration for a specific class of victims like the martyrs, but others (according to you in this thread) are not allowed to mourn a specific class of victims

maybe we're both just blinded somewhat, but all i'm saying is you could be less of a prick about it considering that it is in fact an emotional time
 
Josie said:
For the life of me, I cannot understand why all gay people aren't screeeeeeeeeeaming right now condemning radical Islam .... most of the ones I've seen are blaming guns and Christians.
Click to expand...

That's easy: A leftist is a leftist first, irrespective of any other consideration.
 
chromium said:
whatever, you would be all over me for that, and i'm no longer going to make any effort to convince you that you're wrong



so you are entitled to feel admiration for a specific class of victims like the martyrs, but others (according to you in this thread) are not allowed to mourn a specific class of victims

maybe we're both just blinded somewhat, but all i'm saying is you could be less of a prick about it considering that it is in fact an emotional time
Click to expand...

Lol, right, you were on my ass for no reason at all (the thread was about what we thought worth dying for) and I'm the only one being a prick.
 
X Factor said:
Lol, right, you were on my ass for no reason at all (the thread was about what we thought worth dying for) and I'm the only one being a prick.
Click to expand...

btw, still waiting for you to "unconditionally condemn" this attack instead of challenging others, for no reason at all, for not caring enough about other victims (which is exactly what you're accusing me of doing to you in the other thread)

after all, this thread was about the art exhibit, not the orlando massacre....but you had to go there, using actual and not hypothetical tragedies, to attack liberals

i can say that with confidence because i've seen many other posters who don't seem to give a **** about the victims doing exactly the same. However, you are the only one with the gall to say the victims 'flaunted their gayness'
 
Last edited:
chromium said:
btw, still waiting for you to "unconditionally condemn" this attack instead of challenging others, for no reason at all, for not caring enough about other victims (which is exactly what you're accusing me of doing to you in the other thread)
Click to expand...

No reason at all? You attacked me for lamenting the deaths of Christians but then you come in here and argue it's perfectly fine to feel bad for some victims over others. It would be laughable if it wasn't just so sad.

after all, this thread was about the art exhibit, not the orlando massacre....but you had to go there, using actual and not hypothetical tragedies, to attack liberals

i can say that with confidence because i've seen many other posters who don't seem to give a **** about the victims doing exactly the same. However, you are the only one with the gall to say the victims 'flaunted their gayness'
Click to expand...

If I've pissed you off - good. You certainly don't inspire anything else in me. I've never been one to be conflicted about condemning Islamic terrorism or argued how it's on the victims to not provoke it. How about you?
 
Grant said:
A follow-up to the trial. For 10 months, we knew Garland cop was a terror-fighting hero; now we finally know his name | | Dallas Morning News
Click to expand...

Thanks Grant, where ever you are. :thumbs::thumbs:

jmotivator said:
This thread makes an interesting backdrop to the horrible events in Orlando.

There is no difference in the mind of Radical Islam between those attending the event at the Culwell Center in Texas and those in attendance at Pulse in Orlando. We are all an affront to Allah and must be exterminated.

Moral of the story is that if your lifestyle is an affront to Allah then you'd better be armed.
Click to expand...

Words to live by.

X Factor said:
He's not back. That post was from 4 months ago or so.
Click to expand...

He should come back.

TheGoverness said:
According to that logic, it would be just a "consequence". I guess I gotta hide my gayness in order to not be shot to death by some Islamic terrorist.
Click to expand...

Just be aware of your surroundings and stay armed.
 
Josie said:
For the life of me, I cannot understand why all gay people aren't screeeeeeeeeeaming right now condemning radical Islam .... most of the ones I've seen are blaming guns and Christians.
Click to expand...

Pretty dumb, huh?
 
Zyphlin said:
You'd perhaps have a point if The Pulse was having some kind of "Mecca of Gayness" night or something purposefully aimed at antagonizing muslims.

You really don't see a difference between:

1. Having an event SPECIFICALLY aimed at engaging in something that offends Muslims for the purpose of showing you don't care that it offends them because it's free expression

2. Engaging in a routine event that is not relating to or concerning muslims in the slightest because it's free expression.
Click to expand...

Just their regular routine offends me, but I'm not gonna kill anyone over it or even come near the place....or any place like it!
 
X Factor said:
No reason at all? You attacked me for lamenting the deaths of Christians but then you come in here and argue it's perfectly fine to feel bad for some victims over others. It would be laughable if it wasn't just so sad.
Click to expand...

i didn't say it's fine, i was explaining that's how it works - HOWEVER MISGUIDED - and that you should not be surprised. Especially since, guess what, you appear to harbor the same preference for certain victims (such as christian martyrs) over others who suffered the same fate. Except you hate me for pointing out this same double standard you're accusing others of

X Factor said:
If I've pissed you off - good. You certainly don't inspire anything else in me. I've never been one to be conflicted about condemning Islamic terrorism or argued how it's on the victims to not provoke it. How about you?
Click to expand...

you're no better than palecon at this moment
 
Zyphlin said:
No. I say that as if there's a difference between engaging in something you know offends them, but your engaging in it has ZERO to do with offending them....and engaging in something you know offends them, but your engaging in it has significantly to do with offending them.

Let me give you a flip side analogy....

Fundamentalist Christians are offended by taking the lords name in vain.

There's a massive difference though between someone who's going through their normal routine day and says "Jesus H. Christ" when upset by something, not realizing there's a fundamentalist Christian within earshot and....

....putting up a giant sign outside of a fundamentalist church that says "JESUS ****ING CHRIST".

While both "offends" said group, one is clearly being done with the intent or at least some level of purpose to offend (Be it to actually offend, or make a point about the offense) while the other is likely not even thinking about the fact that it may offend someone.

Are people seriously trying to act like there's not levels to antagonization? Why do people get ****ing ridiculously on this stupid black and white kick anytime it fits their narrow little political agendas, but when it doesn't all of a sudden they see all kinds of grey.
Click to expand...

I don't approve of gayism in any shape or form.......and they antagonize me every time I'm watching the TV news and they put gay pride events on the screen, or when I'm driving through town and a pride parade is holding up traffic.
Even more offensive is seeing young children exposed to that crap.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom