Should The US Make Speech That's Critical or Disparaging of Muhammed a Crime? [W:636]

Bob Blaylock · Oct 4, 2012

Guy Incognito said:
Bob Blaylock said:

I do not think anyone in this thread other than you has engaged herein in any Muslim-bashing. What we have “bashed” are violent, subhuman savages, and those who would give these savages the power to dictate what rights we get to enjoy as members of a free society. As far as I can tell, you are the only one who has implied that the Muslim religion has relevance to the behavior of these savages.

Click to expand...

That is entirely false.

I assume that you mean to say that every claim that I made in my post is false?

OK, then, show me where anyone other than yourself has engaged in any Muslim-bashing in this thread.

And is this, or is this not, your post…?

Guy Incognito said:
Bob Blaylock said:

So you would rather respect the wishes of subhuman savages who are not members of this society, and who have no standing herein, over the wishes of the “slaveholders” who established this society, and over the wishes of those of us who are now members in standing of this society? That's a rather bizarre representation of Libertarianism, I must say.

Click to expand...

I come from the academic tradition of Nozickian/Rothbardian libertarians. Frankly, I have never understood you folks who hold the framers up like gods, and why you think that following the constitution as they wrote it has anything to do with libertarianism.

As for your question, you have made me into a Strawman, and slurred a religion of peace, so it is not possible for me to answer other than to say you need to get your facts straight, both about me and the Islamic faith.

I was writing about subhuman savages, and you accused me of having “slurred a religion of peace”. I was not bashing Muslims. I was bashing subhuman savages. I said nothing about the professed religious faith of these savages. It is you who claimed that by condemning these savages, I “slurred a religion of peace”, which is to claim that Muslims, in general are savages. It was you that made that connection, not me. I did not make that connection, nor do I agree with it.

Are you now going to claim that you did not write what I have quoted here? Are you going to claim that someone else hack into your account and wrote this in order to falsely make you look like a Muslim-basher?

Guy Incognito · Oct 4, 2012

Bob's implication in that post is that the practitioners of the Islamic religion are "subhuman savages." That he is unwilling to own up to it, and pretends now that he was only referring to some subgroup (who exactly?) does demonstrate a conscience, which is a good thing. I happily accept your clear retraction of your earlier attempt to tar all Muslims As "subhuman.". I now only wish you to purge the ugly word "subhuman" from your vocabulary altogether. But one step at a time, eh?

Pinkie · Oct 4, 2012

Guy Incognito said:
Bob's implication in that post is that the practitioners of the Islamic religion are "subhuman savages." That he is unwilling to own up to it, and pretends now that he was only referring to some subgroup (who exactly?) does demonstrate a conscience, which is a good thing. I happily accept your clear retraction of your earlier attempt to tar all Muslims As "subhuman.". I now only wish you to purge the ugly word "subhuman" from your vocabulary altogether. But one step at a time, eh?

It is YOU who feels Muslims have to be mollycoddled like no other religious group on Planet Earth because YOU perceive them all -- all 1.5 Billion of them-- as have a severe defect in impulse control that every other religious group/group of humans living has not got.

The bigotry here is YOURS.

Guy Incognito · Oct 4, 2012

Pinkie, please stop talking to me.

Pinkie · Oct 4, 2012

Guy Incognito said:
Pinkie, please stop talking to me.

Here's a lesson in freedom of speech, although DP is hardly the government:

I have the right to address you. You have the right to ignore me.

X Factor · Oct 4, 2012

Guy Incognito said:
Only if you consider challenging groupthink to be trolling. These are things people need to consider. I'm not going to stand idly by while a bunch of participants in a Muslim-bashing session pat themselves on the back for being champions of free speech. It's absurd. And if you think the framers were Godlike figures, you need to account for their inherent savagery as slave owners and racists.

It's interesting the savagery you see, and the savagery you don't - or, at least don't seem too concerned about.

I never once trolled or poed this thread,

I wouldn't admit that. I was actually giving you the benefit of the doubt.

that's why I keep asking people to read what I write carefully.

By the way; I notice you failed to dredge up a contradiction from my posts! I cheerfully accept your failure to back up your libelous statement as your de facto concession on this point.

Guy, first you give every reason possible why you think nobody should disparage Muhammed, then you claim that you don't think it should be a crime - well unless it's incitement, and maybe "incitement" should be expanded due to the Internet. You're not condoning killing people over a video but you do place making a video on the same level as murder. You claim some belief in free speech but find the Constitution to be pretty much useless as used toilet paper because the framers were horrible, evil people. I tell you that you're arguing just to argue, you deny that but then admit to someone else that you're just playing devil's advocate. It really looks to me that you're taking positions you know will get the most rise out of people while throwing out little digs about things going over people's heads, statements being "libelous" (I laughed) and telling certain people not to even talk to you - there's an Internet term for people who post as you have in this thread.

Guy Incognito · Oct 4, 2012

Pinkie said:
Here's a lesson in freedom of speech, although DP is hardly the government:

I have the right to address you. You have the right to ignore me.

You haven't got a right to keep harassing me, as you have been doing in this and other threads, so I ask you again to stop.

I will not be speaking with you again.

Pinkie · Oct 4, 2012

Guy Incognito said:
You haven't got a right to keep harassing me, as you have been doing in this and other threads, so I ask you again to stop.

I will not be speaking with you again.

Time will tell. The smart money says "yes, you will."

Guy Incognito · Oct 4, 2012

X Factor said:
It's interesting the savagery you see, and the savagery you don't - or, at least don't seem too concerned about.

I wouldn't admit that. I was actually giving you the benefit of the doubt.

Guy, first you give every reason possible why you think nobody should disparage Muhammed, then you claim that you don't think it should be a crime - well unless it's incitement, and maybe "incitement" should be expanded due to the Internet. You're not condoning killing people over a video but you do place making a video on the same level as murder. You claim some belief in free speech but find the Constitution to be pretty much unless as used toilet paper because the framers were horrible, evil people. I tell you that you're arguing just to argue, you deny that but then admit to someone else that you're just playing devil's advocate. It really looks to me that you're taking positions you know will get the most rise out of people while throwing out little digs about things going over people's heads, statements being "libelous" (I laughed) and telling certain people not to even talk to you - there's an Internet term for people who post as you have in this thread.

Like I said, direct quotes to my posts, if you please. You are grossly mischaracterizing my argument. I explained it succinctly to pirate a few posts back, that may help you understand.

All you proved above is your inability to follow instructions

X Factor · Oct 4, 2012

Guy Incognito said:
You haven't got a right to keep harassing me, as you have been doing in this and other threads, so I ask you again to stop.

I will not be speaking with you again.

Good grief, Guy. Replying to a thread is not harassment.

Guy Incognito said:
Like I said, direct quotes to my posts, if you please. You are grossly mischaracterizing my argument. I explained it succinctly to pirate a few posts back, that may help you understand.

All you proved above is your inability to follow instructions

Whose instructions am I supposed to follow? Tell me what I've mischaracterized?

RedAkston · Oct 4, 2012

Moderator's Warning:

Let's knock off the personal crap shall we? And while we're at it, let's knock off the baiting and flaming as well. If you don't want to respond to someone, don't respond to them. This is a debate site and if you are going to post, people are going to respond.

Guy Incognito · Oct 4, 2012