Shots fired outside Dallas conference on Prophet cartoons

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.

**cincydooley**

Baxx wrote:
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.

Well at least you're pulling from entirely unbiased sources.

**Baxx**

Kanluwen wrote:

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

Yeah I think it's very similar description.

**cincydooley**

Haha. You should care about the source. Kinda informs the viewpoint delivering said message.

Those questions aren't obscene. Killing people is pretty universally considered wrong.

But for some reason racism is sorta okay when it comes to Muslims, especially in parts of Europe and the U.S. Is racism okay, or isn't it? Which "phobias" are wrong? Homophobia had been labeled as clearly wrong, while islamophobia is, again, sorta okay.

You can continue to pick and choose what parts of the pie you're going to eat, but as before, that doesn't necessarily make it right.

**Kanluwen**

Baxx wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:

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

Yeah I live in a country which has been invaded by fascists. Not a single member of my family were unaffected by it. Not a single aspect of society was unaffected. I have learned all my life what fascism means. For instance that criticism is not allowed and is punishable with torture and death. That everybody should think the same. That nobody should make mockery of military leaders. That might makes right. That people categorized as "different" should be killed.

Do you have any idea what fascism is?

Yup.

And to equate religious extremism with fascism suggests to me that your understanding of it is colored by conflating it with whatever you disagree with.

**AlexHolker**

Kanluwen wrote:
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.

You mean "anti-Christian" like drawing a cartoon of Jesus having a gay orgy with Moses, Ganesha and the Buddha and publishing it in one of the most famous satire websites in the world? Because the Onion did that. Nobody tried to murder them.

**Baxx**

cincydooley wrote:
Haha. You should care about the source. Kinda informs the viewpoint delivering said message.

Those questions aren't obscene. Killing people is pretty universally considered wrong.

But for some reason racism is sorta okay when it comes to Muslims, especially in parts of Europe and the U.S. Is racism okay, or isn't it? Which "phobias" are wrong? Homophobia had been labeled as clearly wrong, while islamophobia is, again, sorta okay.

You can continue to pick and choose what parts of the pie you're going to eat, but as before, that doesn't necessarily make it right.

I didn't include all of what was said, I just cut out a snippet. The quote is in the context of moral analysis.

**Hordini**

Baxx wrote:
Hordini wrote:
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.

Sure I have literally alot of ideas about what I'm talking about. I know back in the day, there were a handfull of really blasphemous metal bands. And religious extremists were burning records and making a fuzz. Today, there are thousands of blasphemous bands. And not a single record is burned. Not a single fuzz made. The extremists vere worn out. The fire burned out.

If 20 people draw muhammad, they will be targeted by religious fascists. If 2 million people draw muhammad, what are they gonna do? Kill all of them? Impossible! Kill just a few and let the rest live? If every newspaper posted muhammad cartoons, it would be impossible to justify an attack on just a single one of them. It would be impossible for terrorists to do anything.

The word you're looking for is fuss, not fuzz.

And no, it wouldn't be impossible for terrorists to do anything. It would just be a target-rich environment for them.

**cincydooley**

Baxx wrote:
Hordini wrote:
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.

Sure I have literally alot of ideas about what I'm talking about. I know back in the day, there were a handfull of really blasphemous metal bands. And religious extremists were burning records and making a fuzz. Today, there are thousands of blasphemous bands. And not a single record is burned. Not a single fuzz made. The extremists vere worn out. The fire burned out.

If 20 people draw muhammad, they will be targeted by religious fascists. If 2 million people draw muhammad, what are they gonna do? Kill all of them? Impossible! Kill just a few and let the rest live? If every newspaper posted muhammad cartoons, it would be impossible to justify an attack on just a single one of them. It would be impossible for terrorists to do anything.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

cincydooley wrote:
Haha. You should care about the source. Kinda informs the viewpoint delivering said message.

Those questions aren't obscene. Killing people is pretty universally considered wrong.

But for some reason racism is sorta okay when it comes to Muslims, especially in parts of Europe and the U.S. Is racism okay, or isn't it? Which "phobias" are wrong? Homophobia had been labeled as clearly wrong, while islamophobia is, again, sorta okay.

You can continue to pick and choose what parts of the pie you're going to eat, but as before, that doesn't necessarily make it right.

I didn't include all of what was said, I just cut out a snippet. The quote is in the context of moral analysis. To ask such questions in a moral analysis is obscene.

Theyll attack symbols. Like flying planes into buildings or shooting up magazines.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Being articulate doesn't make Sam Harris any less biased.

**Baxx**

Yeah so you have thousands of targets, but only kill one. That will cause more opposition and less support.

**Hordini**

Baxx wrote:
Yeah so you have thousands of targets, but only kill one. They can't gain support for it. And already, the entire west is target rich environemt. It's not like religious fascists wouldn't want to bomb any kindergarden, school, subway, airport or other place packed with civilians if they could. Entire countries and every single human all over europe and usa are targets of radical islamists.

So if they already want to kill everyone, why is drawing more cartoons going to make them stop wanting to kill everyone?

**Baxx**

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Hordini wrote:

So if they already want to kill everyone, why is drawing more cartoons going to make them stop wanting to kill everyone?

Teaches them, killing does not benefit their cause.

**MWHistorian**

Baxx wrote:
cincydooley wrote:

Those questions aren't obscene. Killing people is pretty universally considered wrong.

Then Egypt is not part of your universe. You know how many egyptians support killing people for stopping believing in islam?

Millions of people thinkg killing people is right. Wether it is for loving someone of same sex, stopping believeing in a religious, drawing cartoons or thinking critically.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Hordini wrote:

So if they already want to kill everyone, why is drawing more cartoons going to make them stop wanting to kill everyone?

The more they react, the more blasphemy we create. It teaches them, killing does not benefit their cause. If they want to live, they must learn to behave morally.

I don't think hate is a good way to fight hate.
The extremist deserve more than cartoons and the average Muslim will just get offended and possibly grow to hate the west and fight against it.

**Baxx**

cincydooley wrote:

But for some reason racism is sorta okay when it comes to Muslims, especially in parts of Europe and the U.S. Is racism okay, or isn't it? Which "phobias" are wrong? Homophobia had been labeled as clearly wrong, while islamophobia is, again, sorta okay.

I don't agree with phobia in this context.

**timetowaste85**

You know what the best part of this thread is? There's a couple people in here that I just want to call a bunch of fething gakkers. And they're currently advocating my right to do so in this very thread!!

Remember mods, the people who click the triangle for me saying this actually fully support me saying it.

**cincydooley**

The suffix "phobia" has nothing to do with irrationality. You may think they're irrational, but nothing about them, clinically, defines them as irrational.

You keep referring to "mass murdering military leader." I can only assume you're referring to George Washington? Or are you referencing Dwight Eisenhower? Or maybe Winston Churchill? Boudicca? Or maybe Saladin? Maybe Robert the Bruce?

**Sigvatr**

I'm sorry for the guard that got hurt.

On the upside, the world got rid of two oxygen thieves. Big thanks to the police officers who shot them.

**Co'tor Shas**

Meh, I would have rather they been captured. Would have been nice to know if this was a spontaneous incident or not. And I prefer people go on trial for their mis-deeds anyway.

**Baxx**

But "irrational" is used in the start of the wikipedia article about phobia.

In clinical psychology, a phobia is a type of anxiety disorder, usually defined as a persistent fear of an object or situation in which the sufferer commits to great lengths in avoiding, typically disproportional to the actual danger posed, often being recognized as irrational.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phobia

**Co'tor Shas**

Baxx wrote:

Co'tor Shas wrote:
Meh, I would have rather they been captured. Would have been nice to know if this was a spontaneous incident or not. And I prefer people go on trial for their mis-deeds anyway.

Me too, I would like people like that to actually participate in discussion wether it is right to kill people for drawing cartoons. I'd be tempted to send them letters with my own drawings to them in jail.

This is Texas we're talking about, they'd probably be executed within the week.

**cincydooley**

Wikipedia is, at best, a tertiary source. While phobias may be considered by others as irrational, they are not clinically defined as such, to my knowledge.

You should also probably reevaluate your definition of biased. Wikipedia would be a perfect example of an unbiased source. Citing someone that is vehemently anti-religion as an unbiased source is simply incorrect. Harris' very publicized bias informs any opinion he's going to present. And as such, anything he can use to support said viewpoint he'll use. Just like the idiots trying to link gay marriage to the Baltimore riots.

**Baxx**

I think his argument is strong and valid regardless of where it came from.

**cincydooley**

It's akin to a homophobe citing Fred Phelps as a reliable, unbiased source.

Granted, I think Harris is far more intelligent and reliable, but neither of those things make him any more unbiased.

**Baxx**

I think the message stands firmly on its own.

**Frazzled**

timetowaste85 wrote:
You know what the best part of this thread is? There's a couple people in here that I just want to call a bunch of fething gakkers. And they're currently advocating my right to do so in this very thread!!

Remember mods, the people who click the triangle for me saying this actually fully support me saying it.

If your post were a fat weiner dog my wife would be going "watch this!" and spinning it on the kitchen floor. me likey

**Jihadin**

Baxx, your cracking me the Hell up

**Baxx**

Allright, so not all in vain. I have a strong oppinion about this topic. Sorry if I danced on any toes here.

**Peregrine**

Baxx wrote:
I think the message stands firmly on its own.

What message? That the world is black and white, and if you're the victim of a really bad person you instantly become a perfect saint and immune to criticism? It's an utterly stupid message, and considering the source just tells us that we shouldn't be surprised that he said it.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Baxx wrote:
It is unnatural to me to call fear of attacks from radical islamist terrorists as phobic, when such events happens daily all over the world.

It's an irrational fear because you are almost certainly not going to be the victim of a terrorist attack. You might as well be terrified of being killed by an electrical problem with your computer as you write your post about how scary terrorism is.

**Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl**

From my meagre knowledge on the subject, Pamela Geller is not the kind of Islamophobe I want to get behind. More the kind that shouts bs about taqiya thinking she discovered some kind of secret conspiracy rather than “religious figure saying to Shia it is okay to lie when they go to Mecca so that they are not discriminated against” than the kind that the kind that gets the difference between criticizing Islam and demonizing Muslims.
Still, attacking her rather than the terrorists here seems quite in bad taste.

**Baxx**

Peregrine wrote:

What message? That the world is black and white, and if you're the victim of a really bad person you instantly become a perfect saint and immune to criticism? It's an utterly stupid message, and considering the source just tells us that we shouldn't be surprised that he said it.

You draw some new elements into the discussion: black and white and victim becomes saint and immune to criticism. Please elaborate.

**Peregrine**

Baxx wrote:
In my country and surrounding countries, multiple artists live the rest of their lives with armed police bodyguards because of the threat after drawing cartoons. Almost certainly they would be the victim of terrorist attacks because terrorists have tried multiple times already. That's how scary it is.

Are you an artist who has been subject to those threats?