• 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:
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...

You've been asked four times to provide evidence to your claims. You've strongly refused putting a reference to show that the mockery of religion is an unprotected speech or how the American legal system limits freedom of speech when it comes to the mockery of religion. You're embarrassing really and that's all I've been pointing out here.

Regarding the actual topic the mockery of religion has never been unprotected speech and probably never will in America. What is referred to as unprotected speech is incitement to violence, incitement to racism, copyrights issues, libel, threats of violence, fighting words etc etc etc. If there's something you've learned today it is that you should study the law before you try and use it in defense of your repulsive agenda - an agenda that strongly opposes one of Democracy's key values; the freedom of speech.

By the way, DP is a private website and is not required by law to grant you the freedom of speech when you're posting on its boards, so that's yet more stupid.
 
Last edited:
Re: Shooting at Muhammad Art Exhibit in Texas

Apocalypse said:
You've been asked four times to provide evidence to your claims. You've strongly refused putting a reference to show that the mockery of religion is an unprotected speech or how the American legal system limits freedom of speech when it comes to the mockery of religion. You're embarrassing really and that's all I've been pointing out here.

Regarding the actual topic the mockery of religion has never been unprotected speech and probably never will in America. What is referred to as unprotected speech is incitement to violence, incitement to racism, copyrights issues, libel, threats of violence, fighting words etc etc etc. If there's something you've learned today it is that you should study the law before you try and use it in defense of your repulsive agenda - an agenda that strongly opposes one of Democracy's key values; the freedom of speech.

By the way, DP is a private website and is not required by law to grant you the freedom of speech when you're posting on its boards, so that's yet more stupid.
Click to expand...

Continue projecting your straw man and argue with yourself.
 
Re: Shooting at Muhammad Art Exhibit in Texas

Blemonds said:
Their acts were provocative so I'm certain our liberal friends will hold them accountable
Click to expand...

Well of course, that's what should be done with irresponsible behavior.
 
Re: Shooting at Muhammad Art Exhibit in Texas

Montecresto said:
Continue projecting your straw man and argue with yourself.
Click to expand...

You don't seem to know what a strawman argument is, that far is obvious, just like you don't know what free speech in America is.
An example of a strawman argument is you claiming that someone said that he hates Muslims based on nothing that he said.
So you're not just ignorant as to what a strawman argument is, you are also, once again, an hypocrite.
 
Re: Shooting at Muhammad Art Exhibit in Texas

Blemonds said:
Conservative speech of course
Click to expand...

The speech which already is unprotected, which Geller's, one could argue falls under. But until such is successfully argued, (in court of course) it must be accepted as her right, while recognised as the reckless and irresponsible abuse of the constitutions intent that it is, which resulted in an injury.....................this time.
 
Last edited:
Re: Shooting at Muhammad Art Exhibit in Texas

Apocalypse said:
You don't seem to know what a strawman argument is, that far is obvious, just like you don't know what free speech in America is.
An example of a strawman argument is you claiming that someone said that he hates Muslims based on nothing that he said.
So you're not just ignorant as to what a strawman argument is, you are also, once again, an hypocrite.
Click to expand...

And too lazy to read thru the thread to educate yourself of my position, you project a strawman that I never claimed. I'm not alone, there are other free speech advocates that take issue with Geller's expression.

http://uptowncollective.com/2015/05...ing-violence-an-open-letter-to-pamela-geller/
 
Last edited:
Re: Shooting at Muhammad Art Exhibit in Texas

Montecresto said:
The speech which already is unprotected, which Geller's, one could argue falls under. But until such is successfully argued, (in court of course) it must be accepted as her right, while recognised as the reckless and irresponsible abuse of the constitutions intent that it is, which resulted in an injury.....................this time.
Click to expand...
Are you really upset that ISIS affiliated terrorists were injured?
 
Re: Shooting at Muhammad Art Exhibit in Texas

Montecresto said:
And too lazy to read thru the thread to educate yourself of my position, you project a strawman that I never claimed. I'm not alone, there are other free speech advocates that take issue with Geller's expression.

Freedom of Expression vs. Inciting Violence
Click to expand...

Once again you have zero knowledge regarding what a straw man argument is.
Educate yourself on that part.

Regarding the opinion piece you have referred to, that does not constitute as a reference to how the mockery of religion falls under unprotected speech - which is your ignorant claim - under US law. That's what you've been asked five times now to back up with evidence, five times that you're not doing so until now. Five times that you're proving your argument relies solely on your repulsive agenda and your opposition to free speech and not on anything else. Refer to the US law that restricts free speech in the case of the mockery of religion or move along.
 
Re: Shooting at Muhammad Art Exhibit in Texas

j-mac said:
Are you really upset that ISIS affiliated terrorists were injured?
Click to expand...

Of course not, I'm upset that a security guard was injured. I'm glad the attackers were killed, but will be even happier if Geller finds more responsible expressions to advocate her liberties.
 
Re: Shooting at Muhammad Art Exhibit in Texas

Apocalypse said:
Once again you have zero knowledge regarding what a straw man argument is.
Educate yourself on that part.

Regarding the opinion piece you have referred to, that does not constitute as a reference to how the mockery of religion falls under unprotected speech - which is your ignorant claim - under US law. That was what you've been asked five times now to back up with evidence, five times that you're not doing so until now. Five times that you're proving your argument relies solely on your repulsive agenda and your opposition to free speech and not on anything else. Refer to the US law that restricts free speech in the case of the mockery of religion or move along.
Click to expand...

I see you're continuing your strawman argument. My (real) argument is that the American court has placed limitations on speech and that it's my opinion that Geller's should be placed under it, but that until such is successfully argued it remains wreckless and irresponsible speech that all free speech advocates should condemn her on. What's your problem today, did you fight with your wife last night?
 
Re: Shooting at Muhammad Art Exhibit in Texas

Montecresto said:
My (real) argument is that the American court has placed limitations on speech
Click to expand...

You've already stated in this thread that your argument is that the Geller draw-Mohammad-contest was an incitement to violence and was thus forbidden by American laws that are restricting free speech. ('Unprotected speech')

This was your statement, a documented statement since it still exists in this thread, and nearly everyone called you out on that lie.
And it is a lie because it simply isn't true that mocking a religion is "incitement to violence", so there you have it, it's quite simple isn't it.

What's your problem today, did you fight with your wife last night?
Click to expand...

Nope.
 
Re: Shooting at Muhammad Art Exhibit in Texas

Montecresto said:
The speech which already is unprotected, which Geller's, one could argue falls under. But until such is successfully argued, (in court of course) it must be accepted as her right, while recognised as the reckless and irresponsible abuse of the constitutions intent that it is, which resulted in an injury.....................this time.
Click to expand...
You feel it will one day be illegal to draw pictures of Mohammed in the United States???You are one ambitious Muslim!
 
Re: Shooting at Muhammad Art Exhibit in Texas

Apocalypse said:
You've already stated in this thread that your argument is that the Geller draw-Mohammad-contest was an incitement to violence and was thus forbidden by American laws that are restricting free speech. ('Unprotected speech')

This was your statement, a documented statement since it still exists in this thread, and nearly everyone called you out on that lie.
And it is a lie because it simply isn't true that mocking a religion is "incitement to violence", so there you have it, it's quite simple isn't it.



Nope.
Click to expand...

I said its my position that it should be argued under unprotected speech. And it most certainly did draw out extremists for violence. Which is why I would like to see it successfully argued in court. Your still lacking understanding of how things work in America. And your hyperbole that two posters who happen to be fellow bigots of yours constitutes "everyone" is laughable.
 
Re: Shooting at Muhammad Art Exhibit in Texas

Grant said:
You feel it will one day be illegal to draw pictures of Mohammed in the United States???You are one ambitious Muslim!
Click to expand...

Feeling?? I hope that somebody eventually successfully argues that gratuitous provocations that result in violence and death will become illegal under existing unprotected speech guidelines.
 
Re: Shooting at Muhammad Art Exhibit in Texas

Montecresto said:
And too lazy to read thru the thread to educate yourself of my position, you project a strawman that I never claimed. I'm not alone, there are other free speech advocates that take issue with Geller's expression.

Freedom of Expression vs. Inciting Violence
Click to expand...
The writer also says that Geller is inciting the "uneducated and ignorant".

While that's true it then becomes a matter of how to deal with these people. One way is to not respond in any serious way apart from a few tsk tsks, or do what Geller does on her website. Perhaps there are several ways to deal with these crazies, but Americans turning on each other against those who would kill them is not one of the better tactics.
 
Re: Shooting at Muhammad Art Exhibit in Texas

Montecresto said:
Feeling?? I hope that somebody eventually successfully argues that gratuitous provocations that result in violence and death will become illegal under existing unprotected speech guidelines.
Click to expand...
Careful! You gratuitously provoking me.
 
Re: Shooting at Muhammad Art Exhibit in Texas

Apocalypse said:
Once again you have zero knowledge regarding what a straw man argument is.
Educate yourself on that part.

Regarding the opinion piece you have referred to, that does not constitute as a reference to how the mockery of religion falls under unprotected speech - which is your ignorant claim - under US law. That's what you've been asked five times now to back up with evidence, five times that you're not doing so until now. Five times that you're proving your argument relies solely on your repulsive agenda and your opposition to free speech and not on anything else. Refer to the US law that restricts free speech in the case of the mockery of religion or move along.
Click to expand...

I understand the Islamists' leftist helpmates have copies of the Constitution of the U.S. that contain an "All Icky Clause," which prohibits any expression that might make any other person feel all icky. Maybe your copy doesn't have that. Mine doesn't, either.
 
Re: Shooting at Muhammad Art Exhibit in Texas

Montecresto said:
I said its my position that it should be argued under unprotected speech.
Click to expand...

Bull****. You said that it falls under unprotected speech, you've claimed it's "incitement to violence".
You're now retracting your own damned words and that's quite shameful.

And it most certainly did draw out extremists for violence. Which is why I would like to see it successfully argued in court. Your still lacking understanding of how things work in America. And your hyperbole that two posters who happen to be fellow bigots of yours constitutes "everyone" is laughable.
Click to expand...

The only one who has no idea how things work, in America and outside it, is you mate.
Free speech is a key value in every democracy, and the way you oppose it really brings me to ask you why you choose to live in a democracy when you can live in a dictatorship or a theocracy that would fit the ideals you're promoting.
 
Re: Shooting at Muhammad Art Exhibit in Texas

Grant said:
The writer also says that Geller is inciting the "uneducated and ignorant".

While that's true it then becomes a matter of how to deal with these people. One way is to not respond in any serious way apart from a few tsk tsks, or do what Geller does on her website. Perhaps there are several ways to deal with these crazies, but Americans turning on each other against those who would kill them is not one of the better tactics.
Click to expand...

You mean to say that the Americans critical of Gellar constitutes Americans turning on each other?
 
Re: Shooting at Muhammad Art Exhibit in Texas

Montecresto said:
Of course not, I'm upset that a security guard was injured. I'm glad the attackers were killed, but will be even happier if Geller finds more responsible expressions to advocate her liberties.
Click to expand...
Oh, so is there speech you don't think is, or should be protected?

Example, if Christians were as violent today as radical Islam would you condemn equally speech against them?
 
Re: Shooting at Muhammad Art Exhibit in Texas

Apocalypse said:
Bull****. You said that it falls under unprotected speech, you've claimed it's "incitement to violence".
You're now retracting your own damned words and that's quite shameful.



The only one who has no idea how things work, in America and outside it, is you mate.
Free speech is a key value in every democracy, and the way you oppose it really brings me to ask you why you choose to live in a democracy when you can live in a dictatorship or a theocracy that would fit the ideals you're promoting.
Click to expand...

Yes, it IS/WAS incitement of violence IMO. And I would like to see it brought under the unprotected speech guidelines already in existence. But for the umpteenth time, your laziness to read thru the whole thread to know my whole position instead of breaking in on page 150 blathering like an idiot just earned you no further response from me.
 
Re: Shooting at Muhammad Art Exhibit in Texas

j-mac said:
Oh, so is there speech you don't think is, or should be protected?

Example, if Christians were as violent today as radical Islam would you condemn equally speech against them?
Click to expand...

Yes, as does the Supreme Court. And yes, as I'll tell you the same thing as Armageddon, read thru these 160 pages for the answers to all your questions, I probably have at least 50 posts articulating my position, no mead to repeat ad nauseam.
 
Re: Shooting at Muhammad Art Exhibit in Texas

Montecresto said:
Yes, it IS/WAS incitement of violence IMO. And I would like to see it brought under the unprotected speech guidelines already in existence. But for the umpteenth time, your laziness to read thru the whole thread to know my whole position instead of breaking in on page 150 blathering like an idiot just earned you no further response from me.
Click to expand...
It was only "incitement" if you sympathize with the laughable position that simply mocking ones religous figure in the face of barbarity brought forth by a sect of said religion should be protected here. I say nonsense and that your argument is only a byproduct of your own fear or sympathy or both.
 
Re: Shooting at Muhammad Art Exhibit in Texas

j-mac said:
It was only "incitement" if you sympathize with the laughable position that simply mocking ones religous figure in the face of barbarity brought forth by a sect of said religion should be protected here. I say nonsense and that your argument is only a byproduct of your own fear or sympathy or both.
Click to expand...

It's more because I'm an atheist and don't want to be caught in the middle of a fight two large religions seem determined to have. On that, nobody has been able, though I've challenged several posters on it, to explain to me the value of Geller's deliberate provocation of the sensibilities of an entire religion for no other benefit then the joy she experiences by pissing off an entire religion. Care to be the first?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom