Topic: Islamic tolerance
started by: Leisher
Posted by Leisher on Sep. 14 2012,07:05
The unbelievable < display of peace and tolerance > continues in the Middle East.Meanwhile, < the U.S. government outed its own citizen as the filmmaker. >
As if that wasn't disgusting enough:
QUOTE
It was not immediately clear whether Nakoula was the target of a criminal investigation or part of the broader investigation into the deaths of U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans in Libya during a terrorist attack.
What crime? The crime of free speech?
Someone took a depiction of Jesus, dunked it urine, and Christians didn't riot and kill people. (They got that shit out of their system hundreds of years ago.)
I can't believe anyone in the "free world" is stupid enough to think the filmmaker is responsible for any deaths and violence that occur because of his film.
If I killed midgets thinking they were aliens, it wouldn't be Stephen Spielberg's fault.
Posted by Malcolm on Sep. 14 2012,07:39
I'm calling bullshit on the freedom of speech argument, and especially the comparison with Piss Christ.Piss Christ was just that, Jesus in a jar of urine. The dude who did it didn't deceive anyone with the shit he was doing, and he wasn't a convicted asshole criminal.
QUOTE
Assistant U.S. Attorney Jennifer Leigh Williams said Nakoula set up fraudulent bank accounts using stolen identities and Social Security numbers; then, checks from those accounts would be deposited into other bogus accounts from which Nakoula would withdraw money at ATM machines.
It was "basically a check-kiting scheme," the prosecutor told the AP. "You try to get the money out of the bank before the bank realizes they are drawn from a fraudulent account. There basically is no money."
Prior to his bank fraud conviction, Nakoula struggled with a series of financial problems in recent years, according to California state tax and bankruptcy records. In June 2006, a $191,000 tax lien was filed against him in the Los Angeles County Recorder of Deeds office. In 1997, a $106,000 lien was filed against him in Orange County.
American actors and actresses who appeared in "Innocence of Muslims" issued a joint statement Wednesday saying they were misled about the project and alleged that some of their dialogue was crudely dubbed during post-production.
It was "basically a check-kiting scheme," the prosecutor told the AP. "You try to get the money out of the bank before the bank realizes they are drawn from a fraudulent account. There basically is no money."
Prior to his bank fraud conviction, Nakoula struggled with a series of financial problems in recent years, according to California state tax and bankruptcy records. In June 2006, a $191,000 tax lien was filed against him in the Los Angeles County Recorder of Deeds office. In 1997, a $106,000 lien was filed against him in Orange County.
American actors and actresses who appeared in "Innocence of Muslims" issued a joint statement Wednesday saying they were misled about the project and alleged that some of their dialogue was crudely dubbed during post-production.
If you want to argue about freedom of speech, how about all the actors who had their speech literally removed because of this dude without their consent or knowledge? That's about as honest as photoshopping someone's face onto a porno and claiming it's "lost footage from their early career."
EDIT: I'm not coming down on this fucker for hating on Islam, I'm coming down on him because he felt the need to get the unwilling participation of others, and in general, seems to be a dishonest douche.
EDITx2: Rioting is a way to relieve boredom and frustration. If I lived in Egypt, Jordan, or any of those other places, I'd have those two things in spades.
Posted by Leisher on Sep. 14 2012,08:24
QUOTE
I'm calling bullshit on the freedom of speech argument, and especially the comparison with Piss Christ.
Piss Christ was just that, Jesus in a jar of urine. The dude who did it didn't deceive anyone with the shit he was doing, and he wasn't a convicted asshole criminal.
Piss Christ was just that, Jesus in a jar of urine. The dude who did it didn't deceive anyone with the shit he was doing, and he wasn't a convicted asshole criminal.
You're 100% wrong there.
It doesn't matter if he deceived anyone or if he's a former criminal. The film still represents freedom of speech.
If I remember, the guy who did the piss Christ thing tricked someone in some way. Like they didn't know what his exhibit really was or some shit. Either way, it's irrelevant.
QUOTE
If you want to argue about freedom of speech, how about all the actors who had their speech literally removed because of this dude without their consent or knowledge?
Explain. I honestly didn't know about his criminal past or deceiving the actors. I should have read further, but it really doesn't change my point.
When actors appear in films or even when folks appear on reality TV, they sign away their rights to be displayed in a certain way.
I don't think any actor who ever played Hitler actually believes anything Hitler said or did. I don't believe Morgan Freeman is actually God. I don't think Uma Thurman can rip through world class assassins. Etc.
It's make believe. It's a movie. Do you think every single extra in Passion of the Christ agreed with the film's message? Ditto for every political film ever made.
Now if they were tricked about what kind of film they were shooting I'd think that was shitty, but lawyers would argue that's their fault, not his. Plus, it still doesn't affect my point.
None of it justifies folks getting killed and none of it justifies his own government marking him and his loved ones for death.
Posted by Malcolm on Sep. 14 2012,08:42
As for the asshole that made the "film" and his freedom of speech/expression...The douchebag said the actors were making a movie about some 2000 year old Middle Eastern or African warrior. He has blatantly misrepresented himself at almost every opportunity, has multiple aliases, and the only thing he's said which hasn't been a lie thus far is that he hates Muslims. If he wants to exercise a right to say what he wants, then he has need to have the balls to say it & publish it himself, even do it anonymously if he wants. I'd give him every benefit of the doubt if his cast and crew stood in solidarity with him. He can put a one-man Muslim-hating show on Broadway for all I care. He used deception and subversion to promote an agenda and tricked others into helping him. If he'd been up front with them from the beginning, I wouldn't care. But he wasn't, so he fucking deserves any consequences he gets. This isn't artistic freedom up for grabs here, merely the freedom to be an asshole and poke a nest full of bees under the guise of political expression. Everyone that gets stung is going to be very pissed at you. I'd be.
As for the assholes rioting...
They're malcontent assholes who don't have ready access to cable TV. The Arab Spring thing seems to have put the ol' spirit of revolution back into some folk, and no one's really at the helm of that ship (or fleet of ships), so to speak.
As for Piss Christ...
I'm aware of zero deception of any sort involved in that. The artist obtained all the components himself and did everything himself, and was up front about it from start to finish. He also received death threats from the Christians who've not gotten that shit out of their system in the past few centuries. He got a grant from the NEA and some Congressmen got their panties in a tussle, but that's about it.
QUOTE
On April 17, 2011, a print of Piss Christ was vandalized "beyond repair" by Christian protesters while on display during the Je crois aux miracles (I believe in miracles) exhibition at the Collection Lambert, a contemporary art museum in Avignon, France. Serrano's photo The Church was similarly vandalized in the attack.
They aren't smashing down embassies, but it sure as shit ain't tolerant.
Posted by GORDON on Sep. 14 2012,08:44
I think that guy has every right to make a film critical of islam, of the pedophile muhammad, and anything else he wants. I am saying this on a public forum. Should I be arrested if some religious nutball goes on a killing spree over what I just typed?
Posted by GORDON on Sep. 14 2012,08:45
(Malcolm @ Sep. 14 2012,11:42)
QUOTE
QUOTE
On April 17, 2011, a print of Piss Christ was vandalized "beyond repair" by Christian protesters while on display during the Je crois aux miracles (I believe in miracles) exhibition at the Collection Lambert, a contemporary art museum in Avignon, France. Serrano's photo The Church was similarly vandalized in the attack.
They aren't smashing down embassies, but it sure as shit ain't tolerant.
Someone defaced a poster. Wow. Completely comparable to storming american soil and killing americans.
Posted by Malcolm on Sep. 14 2012,08:51
(GORDON @ Sep. 14 2012,10:44)
QUOTE
I think that guy has every right to make a film critical of islam, of the pedophile muhammad, and anything else he wants. I am saying this on a public forum. Should I be arrested if some religious nutball goes on a killing spree over what I just typed?
No, because you're being genuine in your expression and you aren't bullshitting others in order to make your point. All this fucker had to do was fine a cast of people that hated Islam as much as he did, and then make this fucking flick. I'd still be calling him a douche, but I wouldn't feel the need to kidnap, drug, and drop him in Saudi Arabia in the middle of the night to film a variation on the scene in Die Hard 3 where Bruce Willis has to go to Harlem.
Posted by GORDON on Sep. 14 2012,08:52
So... he's guilty because his actors were acting?
Posted by TPRJones on Sep. 14 2012,08:54
Can we agree that everyone involved (excepting the slain) are assholes, but all of them have the right to speak their minds as long as they don't kill anyone to do it?
Posted by Malcolm on Sep. 14 2012,08:54
(GORDON @ Sep. 14 2012,10:45)
QUOTE
(Malcolm @ Sep. 14 2012,11:42)
QUOTE
QUOTE
On April 17, 2011, a print of Piss Christ was vandalized "beyond repair" by Christian protesters while on display during the Je crois aux miracles (I believe in miracles) exhibition at the Collection Lambert, a contemporary art museum in Avignon, France. Serrano's photo The Church was similarly vandalized in the attack.
They aren't smashing down embassies, but it sure as shit ain't tolerant.
Someone defaced a poster. Wow. Completely comparable to storming american soil and killing americans.
You must've missed the "death threats" part earlier.
And someone tell me why the Christians in England and Ireland have been bombing the everloving fuck out of each other for decades now. That has about as much to do with religion as any of this bullshit.
Posted by GORDON on Sep. 14 2012,09:02
I thought the IRA was resisting english occupation. Religion is in the mix? Never heard that.QUOTE
Can we agree that everyone involved (excepting the slain) are assholes, but all of them have the right to speak their minds as long as they don't kill anyone to do it?
Shit yeah. My point from the beginning. My point for about 20 years.
QUOTE
You must've missed the "death threats" part earlier.
I don't really give much of a shit about death threats, either. There's about a million miles between uttering a threat, and following through. At least making a threat first is honest... gathering a mob and taking out unarmed civilians is about as bad as it gets. You can only add some dead women and children to make it worse.... and I honestly believe that mob would have killed any american women and children they could find. Because they are a dirty, unruly, ignorant, religious mob. No time for though, doctor jones.
Posted by TPRJones on Sep. 14 2012,09:03
(GORDON @ Sep. 14 2012,11:02)
QUOTE
I thought the IRA was resisting english occupation. Religion is in the mix? Never heard that.
Seriously?
Posted by GORDON on Sep. 14 2012,09:06
(TPRJones @ Sep. 14 2012,12:03)
QUOTE
(GORDON @ Sep. 14 2012,11:02)
QUOTE
I thought the IRA was resisting english occupation. Religion is in the mix? Never heard that.
Seriously?
Never been a student of the IRA issue. Just know the IRA sets bombs and the english army shoots peeps. If the english army doens't like getting bombed, why don't they get out of ireland? That's why I thought it was about occupation.
Posted by Malcolm on Sep. 14 2012,09:06
(GORDON @ Sep. 14 2012,10:52)
QUOTE
So... he's guilty because his actors were acting?
He told his actors he was making a specific film with a specific plot with specific characters. His overdubbing changes all of it. He made a completely different flick than what his cast and crew signed up for. He lied to them.
Posted by GORDON on Sep. 14 2012,09:07
Stop the presses... actors got exploited.
Posted by Malcolm on Sep. 14 2012,09:10
(GORDON @ Sep. 14 2012,11:06)
QUOTE
(TPRJones @ Sep. 14 2012,12:03)
QUOTE
(GORDON @ Sep. 14 2012,11:02)
QUOTE
I thought the IRA was resisting english occupation. Religion is in the mix? Never heard that.
Seriously?
Never been a student of the IRA issue. Just know the IRA sets bombs and the english army shoots peeps. If the english army doens't like getting bombed, why don't they get out of ireland? That's why I thought it was about occupation.
The Catholics and Protestants have been busy executing other over there every since Henry VIII couldn't get a divorce. The shit going over there is every bit Catholic v. Protestant as much as the shit going on now is Islaim v. the Great Zionist regime or whatever.
That is, to say, the religion is merely an excuse to treat other people shittily. They would have found other reasons, I've no doubt, but this is the banner they're rallying under.
Posted by GORDON on Sep. 14 2012,09:12
Well I guess all I have left to say about that is 
Posted by TPRJones on Sep. 14 2012,09:13
(GORDON @ Sep. 14 2012,11:06)
QUOTE
Never been a student of the IRA issue.
I'm reading through some stuff again now, and maybe it's not quite as much about religion as I thought it was.
Basically it has been Catholics vs Protestants all along, there's no doubt about that. But it's not specifically driven by religion, it's that the original Irish almost all Catholic and the incoming English were almost all Protestant. The religious division became a convenient labeling system. Thus it turned into a religious war ... but it may be more so in name than anything else.
But you don't have to be a student of it to know some of this stuff. It's sort of soaked into the culture through background information in movies like Boondock Saints and Ronin.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Troubles >
Posted by GORDON on Sep. 14 2012,09:17
Never saw Ronin. Saw BS for the first time about two years ago... not much stuck with me.
Posted by Malcolm on Sep. 14 2012,09:21
(GORDON @ Sep. 14 2012,11:07)
QUOTE
Stop the presses... actors got exploited.
Considering it got them involved in a production which might cost them their lives, yeah, I'd say they've got a gripe with this fucker. Would've been nice if they knew that before they got fucking lied to. If he wants to communicate his message, he shouldn't have to trick people into dispensing it. He ought to have the fucking balls to do it himself or at least appear on camera in his movie. The director/producer douche is a complete fucking coward. He deserves to get shanked for it. < This dude > did not. That shit is artistic freedom of speech intended to make a point. < So is this > and < this >.
< This > is some fucker making a low budget exploitation film and then overdubbing it so he can market it to a particular audience and hopefully turn a profit on something that doesn't involve bank fraud. At the very least, the cast and crew deserve to see it yanked from every media outlet.
Posted by GORDON on Sep. 14 2012,09:25
So their faces were used in a way they didn't intend... all they have to do is explain to the insane, murderous mob that it is all a big misunderstanding. The insane, murderous mob will understand and leave them alone.Ok, ok, sarcasm. I think the insane, murderous mob is the problem, and will always be the problem, and the solution is not to implement "walk on eggshells around them" legislation.
Posted by Malcolm on Sep. 14 2012,09:30
I'd rather walk a bit more carefully than have buildings and ambassadors blown to shit. It's cheaper.
Posted by GORDON on Sep. 14 2012,09:31
Give a mouse a cookie.
Posted by Malcolm on Sep. 14 2012,09:34
I can't even see how that's applicable here. If you want to desensitize hypersensitive Muslims by insulting them, go right ahead. Seems like trying to smother a fire with a lake full of kerosene.
Posted by GORDON on Sep. 14 2012,09:39
I guess it comes down to personality types. I would rather live in civilization where we don't tolerate barbarians acting like barbarians, and you keep saying "too expensive" or some such thing.
Posted by TPRJones on Sep. 14 2012,10:14
I absolutely agree that the actors may have reasons for a solid civil case to stop it. It's when people talk of arresting him for some sort of imagined "don't piss off the crazies" criminal statute that I get annoyed.
Posted by Malcolm on Sep. 14 2012,10:41
(GORDON @ Sep. 14 2012,11:39)
QUOTE
I guess it comes down to personality types. I would rather live in civilization where we don't tolerate barbarians acting like barbarians, and you keep saying "too expensive" or some such thing.
Lack of tolerance for barbarism doesn't stop it. The first amendment did shit all good to protect the buildings and people inside them. Your speech is as free as your ammo is plentiful. To use the Die Hard analogy, if someone wants to walk around Harlem with a sign that says, "I hate niggers," that's their thing. If they want to walk the walk while other people are tethered to them, it's quite another matter.
EDIT: In either case, whether or not the walker lives to see another day is directly dependent upon how much military force he brings to back up his words. I haven no sympathy or tolerance for < unarmed prophets >.
Posted by GORDON on Sep. 14 2012,10:44
If the Marines in the compounds actually had live rounds and were allowed to kill the fuck out of everyone jumping the wall, none of this would be happening.
Posted by Leisher on Sep. 14 2012,10:50
Regarding TPR's two posts here, I agree 100%.This asshat could have raped babies during the making of the film, but that still doesn't excuse the behavior it has inspired.
If you're rioting and killing folks because some asshole made a ridiculously terrible movie, THAT NOBODY SAW, half a world away, then you are an utter and complete waste of human life. You need to kill every single person that agrees with you, and then kill yourself. You will not be depriving the world of any art, any medicine, or science that will be furthering mankind. You'll simply be improving the gene pool.
Take away oil and that region of the world's main exports are: Hate, Bigotry, Intolerance, and Terrorism.
Yet, we have to smile and pretend these are "extremists", and that religion really is based on happy happy, joy joy feelings of peace and harmony.
Fuck that shit.
It might be a religion of peace and tolerance to those Muslims who have escaped that region, but not to the folks who are there and oppressed without even realizing it.
It's literally all they have.
What we should have done with Iraq is announced, prior to our invasion, that we're going to be installing a new government that is based on profit sharing. No longer would the government or the people in power be the only ones who see the oil money. From now on, everyone would get an annual check based on oil sales.
Once everyone in Iraq owned X-Boxes, TVs, and the internet, Islam would begin taking a backseat. Ask Japan.
"Hey Muhammed, you want to go suicide bomb some Israelis?"
"Nah man, I'm gonna go surf Reddit and then play League of Legends."
Posted by Malcolm on Sep. 14 2012,10:51
(GORDON @ Sep. 14 2012,12:44)
QUOTE
If the Marines in the compounds actually had live rounds and were allowed to kill the fuck out of everyone jumping the wall, none of this would be happening.
Yeah, that'll cause less of an incident.
Posted by TPRJones on Sep. 14 2012,11:09
The other choice is to close down the embassies, stop the foreign aid, and give them the finger on the way out. We can learn to live without their oil.EDIT: Hell, if the idiot greens would stop blocking nuclear plants, we'd be using a lot less oil for awhile now. Ultimately, it's all Ralph Nader's fault.
Posted by Malcolm on Sep. 14 2012,11:24
(TPRJones @ Sep. 14 2012,13:09)
QUOTE
The other choice is to close down the embassies, stop the foreign aid, and give them the finger on the way out. We can learn to live without their oil.
EDIT: Hell, if the idiot greens would stop blocking nuclear plants, we'd be using a lot less oil for awhile now. Ultimately, it's all Ralph Nader's fault.
EDIT: Hell, if the idiot greens would stop blocking nuclear plants, we'd be using a lot less oil for awhile now. Ultimately, it's all Ralph Nader's fault.
Fucking amen. Then they can turn their destructive tendencies towards the fucktards that run their countries into the ground.
Posted by Malcolm on Sep. 14 2012,11:29
(Leisher @ Sep. 14 2012,12:50)
QUOTE
Once everyone in Iraq owned X-Boxes, TVs, and the internet, Islam would begin taking a backseat. Ask Japan.
< Maybe not the best example >.
Posted by TPRJones on Sep. 14 2012,11:32
Well, in fairness to these Japanese men, have you ever really spent much time with a typical modern Japanese woman? The idea of that being what you have to live with for the rest of your life would drive anyone over the edge.
Posted by Malcolm on Sep. 14 2012,11:47
That's their fault their culture has fostered that mentality for years.
Posted by Leisher on Sep. 14 2012,11:52
(Malcolm @ Sep. 14 2012,14:29)
QUOTE
(Leisher @ Sep. 14 2012,12:50)
QUOTE
Once everyone in Iraq owned X-Boxes, TVs, and the internet, Islam would begin taking a backseat. Ask Japan.
< Maybe not the best example >.
I don't think that diminishes my point.
Suicide has been a part of Japan since forever.
Call me when they're strapping bombs onto their bodies and running into schools.
Posted by Malcolm on Sep. 14 2012,12:21
Here's some < Christian psychos > in another part of the third world. They like kidnapping kids and forcing them into guerilla warfare. I promise you, they're just as Christian as the suicide bombers are Muslim.
Posted by GORDON on Sep. 14 2012,13:22
Well holy shit, Malcolm has totally convinced me that free speech should only be allowed as long as it doesn't upset anyone.
Posted by Troy on Sep. 14 2012,18:36
Vile Rat, aka, Sean Smith, was one of the four Americans killed. He was very well known in EVE online as a pioneer of corporation diplomacy and for pushing some major features.He was one of the most well known and respected members of Goonswarm, and started playing about the same time we did. I only met him a few times in game for diplo stuff, but later got to know him on the football side of the SA forums.
RIP man.
Posted by GORDON on Sep. 15 2012,13:33
I guess this picture speaks a thousand words.< http://www.jammiewf.com/2012/photo-of-the-day-2/ >
Posted by Malcolm on Sep. 19 2012,11:44
< Tours the world >.That entire article is full of people that need slapping until reason takes hold of them.
Posted by Leisher on Sep. 20 2012,06:54
This is actually an excellent point.
Posted by TPRJones on Sep. 20 2012,07:56
I never thought I'd say something like this, but I guess things like "Project Runway" and "Keeping up with the Kardashians" actually do count as having something better to do when compared to what the extremist islamists think typical Americans spend their time doing.
Posted by GORDON on Sep. 20 2012,07:58
Neither one of those things have anything to do with "glorifying the prophet," therefor they are forbidden.
Posted by TPRJones on Sep. 20 2012,08:11
And we don't give a flying shit what the prophet thinks. Ain't it great?
Posted by GORDON on Sep. 20 2012,08:15
(TPRJones @ Sep. 20 2012,11:11)
QUOTE
And we don't give a flying shit what the prophet thinks. Ain't it great?
There is an incarcerated filmmaker in California who doesn't think it is great.
Posted by TPRJones on Sep. 20 2012,08:47
He wasn't arrested because he didn't love the prophet, he was arrested because he's a felonious tool that violated the shit out of his parole.
Posted by GORDON on Sep. 20 2012,08:49
Gotcha.
Posted by Malcolm on Sep. 20 2012,10:48
(GORDON @ Sep. 20 2012,10:49)
QUOTE
Gotcha.
Hey, if he wanted to keep a low profile, he went about it a pretty dumb fucking way.
Posted by GORDON on Sep. 20 2012,10:50
Yep, totally got what was coming to him. The fact that millions of people are calling for his arrest, and the white house took steps to shut down the video has nothing to do with it.
Posted by Malcolm on Sep. 20 2012,12:14
(GORDON @ Sep. 20 2012,12:50)
QUOTE
Yep, totally got what was coming to him. The fact that millions of people are calling for his arrest, and the white house took steps to shut down the video has nothing to do with it.
He violated the basic Hobbesian tenet of, "If you're going to talk shit, expect pain." Furthermore, a judge in Cali just blocked an actor's attempt to get the vid yanked. She was pissed about the number of death threats she received, but I suppose those don't matter.
Posted by TPRJones on Sep. 20 2012,15:27
Depends on the contract she signed when she took the role. It will outline how much of her performance she still has control over and if she can get it pulled. Odds are she can't though because she signed those rights away.
Posted by Malcolm on Sep. 20 2012,17:56
(TPRJones @ Sep. 20 2012,17:27)
QUOTE
Depends on the contract she signed when she took the role. It will outline how much of her performance she still has control over and if she can get it pulled. Odds are she can't though because she signed those rights away.
Olivia DeHavilland successfully sued the entire movie industry claiming the old school contracts were a form of indentured servitude. It wouldn't be the first time some agent's bullshit was overruled.
This is a fraud-prone, proven asshole who has made a financial living lying to people. If he had the balls to stand up on YouTube and personally recite a monologue, or some other such direct shit promoting his beliefs, then fine, I'd be defending him to the hilt. He chose to be a fucking lying bastard about it. I will give him no benefit of any doubt.
Normally, I'd defend someone who speaks their mind from any retribution from the masses. This fucko, not so much. Not on a legal or moral basis, but just because he acted like a dumb-ass. In spite of the psychotic reaction of certain religious folk, the fact remains lives were lost. The parchment and ink that the Bill of Rights was written on didn't stop it from occurring. John Locke loses yet again to Thomas Hobbes.
Posted by GORDON on Sep. 20 2012,17:59
It's the assholes that need their speech defended.edit - Well, their freedom of speech protected, I mean to say.
Posted by Malcolm on Sep. 20 2012,18:09
(GORDON @ Sep. 20 2012,19:59)
QUOTE
It's the assholes that need their speech defended.
edit - Well, their freedom of speech protected, I mean to say.
edit - Well, their freedom of speech protected, I mean to say.
I'll wait to see what this dude thinks when someone makes "The Innocence of Coptic Christians."
Posted by GORDON on Sep. 20 2012,18:18
I would be curious to see the outcome of that. I bet a dollar that nothing would happen. There would be no Coptic Christian Rage.
Posted by Malcolm on Sep. 20 2012,18:43
"It's best not to upset a Wookie..." As absurd as that analogy seems, why the FUCK would you provoke someone that doesn't have much to live for because they live in a shitty third-world country ruled by fundamentalist dictators? Why the fuck would you provoke folks whose hardline members entertain hobbies like blowing shit up by using themselves as crude, oversized blasting caps? Were the fuckwads that stormed the embassy ultimately responsible for killing people? Sure. Do I approve of giving fuckwads more yet another reason to express misdirected indignation? If there's a decent enough cause.
Posted by GORDON on Sep. 20 2012,19:20
They live in a poor, fucked up country because of their islamism. Cure it.
Posted by Malcolm on Sep. 20 2012,20:58
(GORDON @ Sep. 20 2012,21:20)
QUOTE
They live in a poor, fucked up country because of their islamism. Cure it.
Your cure involves embassies getting torched?
Posted by GORDON on Sep. 20 2012,21:22
i am done arguing this circular bullshit with you. either live in fear of upsetting someone insane and restrict behavior, or dont.
Posted by TPRJones on Sep. 21 2012,10:55
There's a big difference between what is wise and what should be prosecuted.Is it wise to piss of Muslims by insulting the prophet? No. Should it be prosecuted? Fuck no. It should be applauded. Well, except when done by this asshole, damn him for making it hard to support insulting Islam. As bad as he makes the anti-Islam crowd look you'd think he was secretly a plant for the other team.
Posted by GORDON on Sep. 22 2012,19:18
Pakistan puts $100k bounty on the filmmaker's head.< http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news....lm?lite >
One wonders if that $100k is directly from the money we pay them.
Also,
QUOTE
He called for legislation to have the anti-blasphemy law at the global level so that no one could hurt the religious emotions of the Muslims in the name of the freedom of expression.
He said the situation would remain tense until anti-blasphemy law was enacted at the world level.
He said the situation would remain tense until anti-blasphemy law was enacted at the world level.
Posted by TPRJones on Sep. 24 2012,07:16
Well, I guess things are going to remain tense forever, then, because Mohammad had herpes and a tiny penis and I will fight to the death for the right to say so!
Posted by GORDON on Sep. 28 2012,15:07
NYC has banned the act of insulting islam.< http://hotair.com/archive....iolence >
New York City.
Posted by Malcolm on Sep. 28 2012,16:00
(GORDON @ Sep. 28 2012,17:07)
QUOTE
NYC has banned the act of insulting islam.
< http://hotair.com/archive....iolence >
New York City.
< http://hotair.com/archive....iolence >
New York City.
Any reputable court will destroy that. The current Supreme Court would.
Posted by TPRJones on Sep. 28 2012,16:21
So, they won't sell ad space in the subway or on busses to anything they consider potentially offensive to the public. How is this new?
Posted by Malcolm on Sep. 28 2012,16:46
(TPRJones @ Sep. 28 2012,18:21)
QUOTE
So, they won't sell ad space in the subway or on busses to anything they consider potentially offensive to the public. How is this new?
Imagine if you were there the first time the Interstate Commerce clause was invoked to make federal authority supersede state. The author is claiming the use of the "fighting words" precedent will destroy the first amendment in the same way the other bullshit argument destroyed the tenth.
EDIT: He further claims to know this because of the similarity of language between the subway ordinance and Supreme Court ruling about words o' fightin'.
Posted by TPRJones on Sep. 29 2012,05:52
I still don't see this as new. For years various metros have been telling people no to ads they thought might be offensive to some, even when they were pretty innocuous. Like all those atheist ads that keep being denied because government peeps don't want to piss off Christians by acknowledging that atheists even exist. Is this the first time for NYC in particular? Or is it because this is the first time it's been about Muslims instead of some other group?Not saying it's not wrong or annoying, just that I'm pretty sure it's been general policy for awhile in lots of places. Applying it to a new group doesn't make it fundamentally different.
Posted by GORDON on Sep. 29 2012,08:36
Now in NYC you can neither have a huge glass of soda, nor can you call muhammad a pedophile. It's like it isn't even worth going to NYC any more.
Posted by Malcolm on Sep. 29 2012,09:23
(GORDON @ Sep. 29 2012,10:36)
QUOTE
Now in NYC you can neither have a huge glass of soda...
I get the feeling that's less about public health and more about some bribe money that got spread around. It only does that in certain establishments.
QUOTE
The limits will not apply to drinks sold in grocery stores, diet sodas, drinks that are more than 70-percent fruit juice, or that contain alcohol.
Dairy drinks containing more than 50 percent milk will also be allowed thanks to their redeeming nutritional qualities
Dairy drinks containing more than 50 percent milk will also be allowed thanks to their redeeming nutritional qualities
Those are some seriously bullshit arbitrary exceptions. Those don't come cheap.
EDIT: The alcohol exception is particularly interesting as that's got about as much nutritional value as sugary beverages. Fruit juice is also goddamn near nothing but sugar (added or naturally occurring.
EDIT x2: I could easily say this is the low calorie drink sweetener, milk, and fruit juice folks tossing some cash the way of a few people and being like, "You know, we think we have a way to make New York healthier, and all you have to do is buy more of what we sell."