Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 MWHistorian wrote:
Stephen Fry had a very applicable quote about being offended which basically boiled down to: You have not right to not be offended. In a land of free speech, people are going to be offended. So what?
My religion get's mocked quite often but you don't see us going on shooting sprees. In fact, I support people that criticize because they should have every right to do so. I don't agree with it, but I'll defend their right to mock my religion.

http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/706825-it-s-now-very-common-to-hear-people-say-i-m-rather
“It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more... than a whine. 'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.' Well, so fething what."

[I saw hate in a graveyard -- Stephen Fry, The Guardian, 5 June 2005]”

 cincydooley wrote:

And in many of those instances, it makes them an insufferable donkey-cave.

Sure, that's their right. Doesn't make them less of an donkey-cave.

But do you apply that to recognized and praised artists, poets and musicians who did similar things?

Thread all over the map today

I would very much suggest this video by Sam Harris on similar terrorist attack in Paris:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxkq5bHe_fA

 Jihadin wrote:
Thread all over the map today

You started it by bringing Arizona into it

It's a horrifying day when I'm siding with Cincy.

The people holding the conference have every right to do what they did. They're still pieces of gak for doing it, as their purpose is clearly inflammatory. I have no issue with freedom of speech creating something that ends up offending someone. That's life: people get offended. It happens. But these gaks set out to purposefully cause offense and an innocent person was injured because of it. That's the part I take issue with. So you can make your "freedom of speech, applaud the people for creating this art" crap comments, but their attitude was that of a hate crime and someone was injured because of it. That makes them pieces of gak.

Their purpose is inflammatory? What purpose woud you, the judge of all purposes, say is not inflammatory?

What could I do, say, draw or think that would not be inflammatory?

Baxx wrote:
Their purpose is inflammatory? What purpose woud you, the judge of all purposes, say is not inflammatory?

What could I do, say, draw or think that would not be inflammatory?

Do you understand what "inflammatory" means?

This was a "conference" organized by a woman with a history of organizing anti-Islam events. She invited Geert Wilders, who has long been 'targeted' by radicalized Islamists, and made a point of calling the event the "Muhammed Art Gallery".

Educate yourself. Look up Pamela Geller.

And it's worth noting that NOBODY is excusing the actions of the shooters. They're simply making the point that in this current atmosphere with radical Islam, it's like touching a hot burner on a stove and expecting not to feel heat radiating off the burner.

People putting the convention on have a history of anti Muslim.
Offer a high prize to people who draw holy figure of Muslim religion.
Muslims are very offended by said holy figure being shown in artwork.
Attack by small group of Muslims.

Get your head out of the sand. If you can't see it, you're being willfully ignorant or you're a troll. Your call: which are you? Ignorant or troll? There is no third option.

I found the exact quote of Sam Harris in context of previous terrorist attack in Paris:

So here's one sign that a person, whether on the left or right politically, has completely lost the plot here: The moment he begins to ask what was in those cartoons? Were those cartoons racist? Was there any negative portrayal of Muhammad? To ask such questions is obscene. People have been murdered over cartoons. End of moral analysis.

The inner cynic in me tells me that these people wanted some radical Muslims to shoot at them just to prove their stupid point.

 TheCustomLime wrote:
The inner cynic in me tells me that these people wanted some radical Muslims to shoot at them just to prove their stupid point.

From the sounds of it, that really is the point. You're not being cynical, just accepting the awful truth.

Having such conferences is the perfect way to clean off some terrorists from the society.

Does anybody remember that scene in the film, The Rock?

The scene where Ed Harris quotes "the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots." Thomas Jefferson

And Sean Connery says "Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel." Oscar Wilde

Sean gets punched in the face by Harris' henchman.

Sean says: "Thank you for proving my point."

These idiots will feel vindicated, because in their eyes, their point has been proven...

Probably should have youtubed the above

 TheCustomLime wrote:
The inner cynic in me tells me that these people wanted some radical Muslims to shoot at them just to prove their stupid point.

The inner voice in me tells me that these people don't want a single shot to ever be fired because someone draws a cartoon. Having such conferences is one step forward to that goal.

Baxx wrote:
Having such conferences is the perfect way to clean off some terrorists from the society.

So the perfect way, for you, includes a security guard being shot? And the potential for many more deaths, had a SWAT team not already been on site.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Baxx wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
The inner cynic in me tells me that these people wanted some radical Muslims to shoot at them just to prove their stupid point.

The inner voice in me tells me that these people don't want a single shot to ever be fired because someone draws a cartoon. Having such conferences is one step forward to that goal.

Well if that's what they want, they're not off to a very good start.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Baxx wrote:
Their purpose is inflammatory? What purpose woud you, the judge of all purposes, say is not inflammatory?

What could I do, say, draw or think that would not be inflammatory?

Do you understand what "inflammatory" means?

This was a "conference" organized by a woman with a history of organizing anti-Islam events. She invited Geert Wilders, who has long been 'targeted' by radicalized Islamists, and made a point of calling the event the "Muhammed Art Gallery".

Educate yourself. Look up Pamela Geller.

And it's worth noting that NOBODY is excusing the actions of the shooters. They're simply making the point that in this current atmosphere with radical Islam, it's like touching a hot burner on a stove and expecting not to feel heat radiating off the burner.

This art, this conference is many things. Inflammatory may very well be one of those things.

If you look at alot of the all-time greatest metal bands throughout history, they fall under the same description you use here. And certainly all extreme metal bands are inflammatory. In the beginning, they were operating in an atmosphere like a hotn burner on a stove. And the heat was all over. Today, the stove is cold, the burner is cold.

 cincydooley wrote:
Are you really likening them to spiritual founders of a major religion?

Are you implying we should not?

 Hordini wrote:

So the perfect way, for you, includes a security guard being shot? And the potential for many more deaths, had a SWAT team not already been on site.

To meet terrorists head on with security forces and armed police is ideal, yes.

This was an inflammatory event. This is really no different than the Westboro Baptist Church, a group which pulls similar tactics of inflammatory actions(such as picketing the funerals of soldiers with signs consisting of vile slogans) and then proceeds to use the actions of anyone who retaliates to form the basis of a lawsuit.

So please. Stop posting, you really don't seem to have any actual understanding of the context that this event was in.

 Hordini wrote:

Well if that's what they want, they're not off to a very good start.

The start is in the hands of mass-murderous fascist terrorists. Killing and raping civilians, children and critics.

It is impossible for the start to be good. But the finish may be very good, as it has been in numerous cases throughout history.

 Kanluwen wrote:
This was an inflammatory event. This is really no different than the Westboro Baptist Church, a group which pulls similar tactics of inflammatory actions(such as picketing the funerals of soldiers with signs consisting of vile slogans) and then proceeds to use the actions of anyone who retaliates to form the basis of a lawsuit.

Sure, it's just like that time the Westboro Baptist Church held a "Why God hates gays" discussion forum at their church, and then somebody tried to murder them all. Remember that? Anyone?

 Kanluwen wrote:
This was an inflammatory event. This is really no different than the Westboro Baptist Church, a group which pulls similar tactics of inflammatory actions(such as picketing the funerals of soldiers with signs consisting of vile slogans) and then proceeds to use the actions of anyone who retaliates to form the basis of a lawsuit.

So please. Stop posting, you really don't seem to have any actual understanding of the context that this event was in.

I know very well was religious extremism looks like. Freedom is often under threat from extremists.

Agreed. It doesn't matter at all what the cartoon was about. It's a cartoon.
To shoot someone over a cartoon is insane. That's what should be discussed. To say "They should have expected it" is basically saying they deserved it and that it's normal. It's not like putting your hand on a hot stove because the stove is a normal thing. It's like ordering a sandwich at Subway and getting punched in the face because you ordered the wrong one.
"What was she wearing? Was it provocative?" That's what I'm hearing a lot of here.

Keep believing that is the crux of the argument. Keep believing that saying "they should have expected this reaction" is the same as "they deserved it".

 Kanluwen wrote:
Keep believing that is the crux of the argument. Keep believing that saying "they should have expected this reaction" is the same as "they deserved it".

The fact that they expected it is the entire reason of the debate.

The only thing to stop religious fascists killing critics is to keep the critisism up.

 MWHistorian wrote:
Agreed. It doesn't matter at all what the cartoon was about. It's a cartoon.
To shoot someone over a cartoon is insane. That's what should be discussed. To say "They should have expected it" is basically saying they deserved it and that it's normal. It's not like putting your hand on a hot stove because the stove is a normal thing. It's like ordering a sandwich at Subway and getting punched in the face because you ordered the wrong one.
"What was she wearing? Was it provocative?" That's what I'm hearing a lot of here.

They knew full well that these kinds of events and the artists that are involved in them have been targeted in the very recent past. You're right, they absolutely didn't deserve it, but they would be incredibly stupid if they didn't expect it. Obviously they did expect it, since they had a SWAT team on site for the event.

Saying they should have expected it is not the same as saying they deserved what happened or that it is a normal or okay thing.

 MWHistorian wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Keep believing that is the crux of the argument. Keep believing that saying "they should have expected this reaction" is the same as "they deserved it".

The fact that they expected it is the entire reason of the debate.

But it doesn't change the nature of the event.

If it had been a Muslim group in the US holding an event that could be considered anti-Christian and an avowed Klansman opened fire at the event, I'm pretty sure we wouldn't be having this discussion.

But since it was an American holding an inflammatory event, it was "protected speech"(never mind that "protected speech" does not necessarily include activities that are tantamount to incitement).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Baxx wrote:
The only thing to stop religious fascists killing critics is to keep the critisism up.

The blasphemy can continue alot longer than the terrorists can. After thousands of mocking cartoons, the religious fascists have to give up.

You keep using the term "fascists". You have no idea what it means, do you?

Baxx wrote:
After thousands of mocking cartoons, the religious fascists have to give up.

You have literally no idea what you are talking about. You really think hardcore extremists are going to give up because people make cartoons? If we just make enough cartoons that they find offensive, they will become so offended that they will throw down their arms? This is like, Naivety Level: Plaid.