[Cattle Rustler]

I learned more from Quintus history lessons than I did from my college history courses.

[Days of Broken Arrows]

I care more about how the media frames debates like this than I care about religion itself.

And to my complete disgust, the New York Times today (May 6), printed an editorial calling the Texas cartoon exhibit "not really about free speech. It was an exercise in bigotry and hatred."

This was authored by "the editorial board," not a specific author. That means it's the official position of the newspaper. This, in my opinion, is such a profoundly dangerous road to go down it's almost unthinkable.

What they do here is attempt to guess people's motivations for creating art or staging exhibits. If they deem your motivation "bad," it's hate speech. But who are they to say what constitutes bigotry? How do they know anyone's real motivations?

What these idiots don't realize is that they're signing their own death warrant. This same school of thought could be used to censor their own writing if the wrong administration gets into office or if societal norms change.

What happens, for instance, if the Muslim and fanatical Christian factions of our society grow to the point where they deem seeing a Jew in a yarmulke is "hateful" to their religion? Should the NYT get behind them, too? What if Hanukkah offends them? Then what?

Don't think two different groups like this won't band together. If feminists and Christians could wage an anti-porn war in the '80s, this could happen.

This really has little to do with Muslims, anyway. The New York Times could just as easily be deeming it hate speech for people to come out against feminists, the "trans community," or any flavor-of-the-month group. Expression did not = hate speech 30 years ago. Now it does. This is not progress.

The cumulative effect of this is that it restricts our language and therefore our thoughts (language begets thought). The less we're allowed to express, the easier we can be victims of tyranny since we'll be too cowed to protest.

Anyway, here is the NYT's latest disgrace:

***

Free Speech vs. Hate Speech
By The Editorial Board, May 6, 2015

There is no question that images ridiculing religion, however offensive they may be to believers, qualify as protected free speech in the United States and most Western democracies. There is also no question that however offensive the images, they do not justify murder, and that it is incumbent on leaders of all religious faiths to make this clear to their followers.

But it is equally clear that the Muhammad Art Exhibit and Contest in Garland, Tex., was not really about free speech. It was an exercise in bigotry and hatred posing as a blow for freedom.

That distinction is critical because the conflicts that have erupted over depictions of the Prophet Muhammad, most notably the massacre of staff members at the French satirical weekly Charlie Hebdo in January by two Muslim brothers, have generated a furious and often confused debate about free speech versus hate speech. The current dispute at the American chapter of the PEN literary organization over its selection of Charlie Hebdo for a freedom of expression courage award is a case in point — hundreds of PEN’s members have opposed the selection for “valorizing selectively offensive material.”

Charlie Hebdo is a publication whose stock in trade has always been graphic satires of politicians and religions, whether Catholic, Jewish or Muslim. By contrast, Pamela Geller, the anti-Islam campaigner behind the Texas event, has a long history of declarations and actions motivated purely by hatred for Muslims.

Whether fighting against a planned mosque near ground zero, posting to her venomous blog Atlas Shrugs or organizing the event in Garland, Ms. Geller revels in assailing Islam in terms reminiscent of virulent racism or anti-Semitism. She achieved her provocative goal in Garland — the event was attacked by two Muslims who were shot to death by a traffic officer before they killed anyone.

Those two men were would-be murderers. But their thwarted attack, or the murderous rampage of the Charlie Hebdo killers, or even the greater threat posed by the barbaric killers of the Islamic State or Al Qaeda, cannot justify blatantly Islamophobic provocations like the Garland event. These can serve only to exacerbate tensions and to give extremists more fuel.

Some of those who draw cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad may earnestly believe that they are striking a blow for freedom of expression, though it is hard to see how that goal is advanced by inflicting deliberate anguish on millions of devout Muslims who have nothing to do with terrorism. As for the Garland event, to pretend that it was motivated by anything other than hate is simply hogwash.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/07/opinio...-well&_r=0

[Wutang]

Is the New York times....victim blaming?

"Now I'm not saying that girls who dress provocatively should be raped buuuuut..."

"Now I'm not saying that cartoonists who draw provocative cartoons should be shot buuuut..."

[Yatagan]

[Slim Shady]

(05-06-2015 02:37 PM)Blick Mang Wrote:  

It's difficult to view a civilization in a positive light when it's diametrically opposed to our own, and at every corner in history since its inception, has sought to convert, kill, or enslave those around it. It's a religion deeply rooted at the scriptural level in expansionism and conquest

Absolutely correct, but Christians can not claim to be diametrically opposed to this philosophy. Both Christianity and Islam are so widespread today not because they are great religions, but because it is required for members of both religions to convert others to their beliefs. Christians are obligated to change other people's core way of life -through force if needed - but claim that it is for our own "salvation". The religion is steeped in hypocrisy.

You can't claim this moral high ground as a Christian, mate.

I lived in the Middle East for some years and studied Arabic. I know of the great thinkers of the Muslim culture that QC mentioned. Yet, I will never come close to defending Islam. Liberals that defend Islam are obscenely deluded. It is a backwards and medieval religion, and I get that. But it is a bad religion that also behaves like a bad religion. It overtly takes the role of "bad guy" with violence and terrorism. "Muslims are bearded pigs that don't shower and yell in harsh guttural sounds."

The Christians, and historically Christian nations, make their money by pretending to be the good guy and taking the moral high ground while doing the same evil shit that the other side is doing.

Even if we ignore the bloody medieval history of Christianity and focus solely on modern Imperialism, the body count is in the many tens of millions. One of the biggest reasons for Imperialism was converting other people to Christianity and giving the "savages" western cultural values. People were tortured and murdered in the name of Christianity.We never wanted your backwards Western principles in the first place. You weren't saving us, you were feeding our logically inclined minds with illogical dogma. Christianity and Islam have bogged down progress, not encouraged it.

The Holocaust is a joke compared with the British body count in India alone. It is also a joke, however, compared with the Muslim body count in India. The problem is that the British are seen as Gentlemen fighting the "good fight". The British aren't alone in their Christian atrocities. Actually there are so many that I feel a bit annoyed that I have to write this post.

If it is too simplistic to mark both of these religions as evil, then it is also correct. They are both completely opposed to the principles we value on this forum, such as:

-Freedom

-Logic

-Science/Scientific Method

-Objectivity

-Burden of Proof

-Having independent thought

-Rape

-Murder

etc, etc.

I simply can not understand how members so vehemently "hamsterize" topics on this forum based on their religious [most often Christian] preferences. If people always behaved exactly how they said they would behave, then Feminism really would be about equality - "because that's how words work, duh!".

Make up your own code of conduct based on rational thought, and your own ability to judge "right" and "wrong". It is really unfortunate that Feminists and SJWs are generally atheists which makes Christianity seem like the "red pill" path to take. It is not.

God is nothing more than an unnecessary complication to the equation. Live without fear. Keep drawing Mohammed if you want, but for God's sake don't let it be un-funny drivel like those Charlie Hebdo drawings. Those really were not funny.

[poutsara]

(05-06-2015 01:41 AM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  

As men are members of one another, and generations are moments in a family line, so civilizations are units in a larger whole whose name is history; they are stages in the life of man. Civilization is polygenetic--it is the cooperative product of many peoples, ranks, and faiths; and no one who studies its history can be a bigot of race or creed. Therefore, the scholar, though he belongs to his country through affectionate kinship, feels himself also a citizen of that Country of the Mind which knows no hatreds and no frontiers; he hardly deserves his name if he carries into his study political prejudices, or racial discriminations, or religious animosities; and he accords his grateful homage to any people that has borne the torch and enriched his heritage.

This is what I believe.

Will Durant for the Win, once again.

[robreke]

(05-06-2015 10:37 PM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  

I care more about how the media frames debates like this than I care about religion itself.

And to my complete disgust, the New York Times today (May 6), printed an editorial calling the Texas cartoon exhibit "not really about free speech. It was an exercise in bigotry and hatred."

This was authored by "the editorial board," not a specific author. That means it's the official position of the newspaper. This, in my opinion, is such a profoundly dangerous road to go down it's almost unthinkable.

What they do here is attempt to guess people's motivations for creating art or staging exhibits. If they deem your motivation "bad," it's hate speech. But who are they to say what constitutes bigotry? How do they know anyone's real motivations?



What these idiots don't realize is that they're signing their own death warrant. This same school of thought could be used to censor their own writing if the wrong administration gets into office or if societal norms change.

What happens, for instance, if the Muslim and fanatical Christian factions of our society grow to the point where they deem seeing a Jew in a yarmulke is "hateful" to their religion? Should the NYT get behind them, too? What if Hanukkah offends them? Then what?

Don't think two different groups like this won't band together. If feminists and Christians could wage an anti-porn war in the '80s, this could happen.

This really has little to do with Muslims, anyway. The New York Times could just as easily be deeming it hate speech for people to come out against feminists, the "trans community," or any flavor-of-the-month group. Expression did not = hate speech 30 years ago. Now it does. This is not progress.

The cumulative effect of this is that it restricts our language and therefore our thoughts (language begets thought). The less we're allowed to express, the easier we can be victims of tyranny since we'll be too cowed to protest.

Anyway, here is the NYT's latest disgrace:

***

Free Speech vs. Hate Speech
By The Editorial Board, May 6, 2015

There is no question that images ridiculing religion, however offensive they may be to believers, qualify as protected free speech in the United States and most Western democracies. There is also no question that however offensive the images, they do not justify murder, and that it is incumbent on leaders of all religious faiths to make this clear to their followers.

But it is equally clear that the Muhammad Art Exhibit and Contest in Garland, Tex., was not really about free speech. It was an exercise in bigotry and hatred posing as a blow for freedom.

That distinction is critical because the conflicts that have erupted over depictions of the Prophet Muhammad, most notably the massacre of staff members at the French satirical weekly Charlie Hebdo in January by two Muslim brothers, have generated a furious and often confused debate about free speech versus hate speech. The current dispute at the American chapter of the PEN literary organization over its selection of Charlie Hebdo for a freedom of expression courage award is a case in point — hundreds of PEN’s members have opposed the selection for “valorizing selectively offensive material.”

Charlie Hebdo is a publication whose stock in trade has always been graphic satires of politicians and religions, whether Catholic, Jewish or Muslim. By contrast, Pamela Geller, the anti-Islam campaigner behind the Texas event, has a long history of declarations and actions motivated purely by hatred for Muslims.

Whether fighting against a planned mosque near ground zero, posting to her venomous blog Atlas Shrugs or organizing the event in Garland, Ms. Geller revels in assailing Islam in terms reminiscent of virulent racism or anti-Semitism. She achieved her provocative goal in Garland — the event was attacked by two Muslims who were shot to death by a traffic officer before they killed anyone.

Those two men were would-be murderers. But their thwarted attack, or the murderous rampage of the Charlie Hebdo killers, or even the greater threat posed by the barbaric killers of the Islamic State or Al Qaeda, cannot justify blatantly Islamophobic provocations like the Garland event. These can serve only to exacerbate tensions and to give extremists more fuel.

Some of those who draw cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad may earnestly believe that they are striking a blow for freedom of expression, though it is hard to see how that goal is advanced by inflicting deliberate anguish on millions of devout Muslims who have nothing to do with terrorism. As for the Garland event, to pretend that it was motivated by anything other than hate is simply hogwash.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/07/opinio...-well&_r=0

When the discussion and the frame of the conversation gets turned toward blaming the people who were putting on the exhibit/ insinuating that "they were asking for it" / insinuating that those people putting on the exhibit are "kooks" anyway or some such, the whole point is lost. The terrorists have won at that point.

We're discussing the kookiness or weirdness or whatever one's disagreement is with the art exhibit people/ Ms. Geller, etc and not focusing on what really matters:

ISIS backed terrorists tried to commit an act of terror on US soil in response to speech which is protected by the US constitution, that they did not agree with. ISIS has plants in the USA. Think of the implications of this going forward. Do you want to be at a coffee shop one day a year or three from now in a big city with your date and terrorists are blowing shit up like happened in Israel in the past? Of course no one does.

This IS the issue. To smoke screen / throw up red herring arguments about the fact that they were trolling for an attack, etc. is ceding the terrorists and their future goals ground.

There's all kinds of free speech that happens in the USA on a daily basis that people don't have their lives threatened over. Look at a lot of the slop Hollywood puts out that is a big Fuck you to traditional American families/Christian values. Look at all the comedians that get up on stage and mercilessly make fun of Christians, etc. Some of these things are downright vile and offend me and I turn them off. I don't grab my AR and head to the amphitheater to take out revenge though.

BTW....I'm all for Hollywood and these Comedians and musicians being able to do what they do and I do find some of it entertaining, I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy. The hypocrisy being, when someone does it against Islam...the whole US has to brace for bombs and bullets. Then, an attack does happen, some people, news outlets, etc. make excuses for it, try to understand it and downright blame the art exhibit people for it happening in the first place. I wish these news media and others would understand if the terrorists got their way with Sharia law, there would be no freedom of the press, homosexuality ( which liberals and the press love) would be punishable by death and women ( read feminists, liberal women, etc) would be reduced to the status of chattel wearing burkas with their heads covered 24 /7. These fuckos often don't think things out to their logical conclusion.

[Sherman]

It's important to keep some perspective here. We are talking about a group of people who got together to draw cartoons. If we are going to treat this seriously and fall for the politically correct narrative than we might as well become feminists.

[Island Souljah]

(05-06-2015 10:31 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

Quintis, I'll respond to you soon. I have shit to do today though. But the short of what I'll write has the following in it:

- Many of the guys you mentioned above were Christian or Zoroastrian slaves.
- That early golden age period was basically the inertia of previous cultures Islam was riding on before Islam sucked it all dry (Easily seen via inbreeding charts).
- During this "golden age" of Islam, Constantinople was still the first city in the world by any measure and still had the most learning and knowledge from old Rome in it.
- It's not valid to say Islam was good just because it had a small period of good time after it's initial conquests, Rome had the same thing before it spent itself out. 1000 years after Christ you had Constantinople, first city in the world. 1000 years after Mohammad in 1700 AD Islamic countries were already in permanent decline, Ottoman Empire was controlled by the Sultanate of Women. Look at the long run - 1000 years after Constantinople you had America (another country built by Christians). A religion cannot be measured by any small period of time - the hallmark of success is the test of time. The amount of good times in Islam are vastly outweighed by the bad.

I'll back up these claims later with more evidence - but I think I cannot get to this until tomorrow. I will try to soon.

Dont bother, there is no evidence that backs up what you are selling.
BTW, I did not know that the African slaves, and indentured Chinese laborers that actually did most of the building of the US were Christians. Its not just your facts that are skewed its your non-scholarly perspective that makes your entire argument flawed. You just also happen to be wrong on all the points you have mustered so far.

[WalterBlack]

(05-06-2015 11:17 PM)Seboist Wrote:  

Dupe - in this thread

[Sherman]

   

Cartoonist Game

[KorbenDallas]

The NYT didn't write an op-ed saying how Christians were hurt by the Jesus soaked in piss statue.

They do claim to care about the millions of Muslims offended by the cartoon event.

This is a very dangerous message. Essentially, what the NYT is saying, is that they obviously don't care about offending religious peoples sensibilities, evidenced by their extreme support for events and "art" that mocks and desecrates the Christian god, but if your violent enough, as in the case of Islamic terrorists who will kill if you draw a picture of their prophet, then they will not only not mock you, they will write op-ed columns in your defense!

The NYT is sending out the message to Christians that they don't care about their sensibilities only because their not violent enough.

In my opinion though, the NYT is not defending the Islamic terrorist reaction to the cartoon drawing out of genuine respect for peaceful Muslims, but only because Muslims are an ally in their war on conservative Christians, who in the PC Liberal worldview, is a subhuman who isn't dying fast enough.

[Atlanta Man]

I just want to add some real shit to this thread. The heroic officer who killed these two shitheads had a 45 cal glock. The shithead extremists had AK 47's Full body armor with Iron chest plates( chest plates are resistant to High Powered rifles like AK/M4) he only fired 3 shots and all were head shots. That off duty officer is a beast mode, deadeye, grade A firearms master! Under real life pressure, literally under fire, he made a video game level headshot, TWICE(ALL CAPS AGAIN), TWICE! He must have balls twice the size of Saturn, his heart pumps straight nitro, he is all that shit I aspire to in terms of nerve. The media cannot name him because ISIS put a price on his head, so I have no name to salute, but I always fantasize about what I wish I had the ability to do under pressure-never in my wildest fantasies could I ever imagine the ability and poise this unnamed hero had in real life.

To this unnamed marksman of exceptional skill, I am just in awe.

America, Fuck Yeah!

[iknowexactly]

(05-10-2015 12:06 AM)Atlanta Man Wrote:  

The heroic officer who killed these two shitheads had a 45 cal glock. The shithead extremists had AK 47's Full body armor with Iron chest plates( chest plates are resistant to High Powered rifles like AK/M4) he only fired 3 shots and all were head shots. That off duty officer is a beast mode, deadeye, grade A firearms master!

To this unnamed marksman of exceptional skill, I am just in awe.

America, Fuck Yeah!

Shit yeah, I'm happy even though I'm a pinko liberal we have badass gun experts to weed out barbarian hordes. I think everyone should have freedom of SPEECH not freedom to fucking shoot each other for no reason like those two dead assholes tried.

Out of curiosity, I wonder if you had a vest with an iron chest plate and took a direct hit from a .45 in the chest plate, would most people still be up for running around and shooting more victims?

[Ziltoid]

(05-10-2015 01:53 PM)iknowexactly Wrote:  

Out of curiosity, I wonder if you had a vest with an iron chest plate and took a direct hit from a .45 in the chest plate, would most people still be up for running around and shooting more victims?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout

[Atlanta Man]

(05-10-2015 01:53 PM)iknowexactly Wrote:  

(05-10-2015 12:06 AM)Atlanta Man Wrote:  

The heroic officer who killed these two shitheads had a 45 cal glock. The shithead extremists had AK 47's Full body armor with Iron chest plates( chest plates are resistant to High Powered rifles like AK/M4) he only fired 3 shots and all were head shots. That off duty officer is a beast mode, deadeye, grade A firearms master!

To this unnamed marksman of exceptional skill, I am just in awe.

America, Fuck Yeah!

Shit yeah, I'm happy even though I'm a pinko liberal we have badass gun experts to weed out barbarian hordes. I think everyone should have freedom of SPEECH not freedom to fucking shoot each other for no reason like those two dead assholes tried.

Out of curiosity, I wonder if you had a vest with an iron chest plate and took a direct hit from a .45 in the chest plate, would most people still be up for running around and shooting more victims?

Zel linked a video, but I will type you a quick response in addition. A level 4 soft armor vest with no chest plate inserted can take multiple shots in succession from a 45 cal. The chest plate is usually reserved for combat where M4/AK47 are common. The average policeman day to day wears soft armor without a plate, most soldiers wear straight up plate carriers with double plates if they are going into the shit. Dragon Skin is the only soft armor that ,without a plate, literally has bullets bounce off of it. Dragon Skin was prone to failure if exposed to hot weather for too long so the military did not adopt it. The vest I own is level 4 with carbon fiber plates. A 50 cal defeats everything, and a FN 5.7 with armor piercing bullets is the only practical handgun on the market that also cuts right through soft armor front and back. I carry an FN sometimes(with hollow points, I keep the armor piercing ammo in my home magazine ) so does the Secret Service.

Also even with just a soft level 4 and no plate you would not even feel the 45 cal forcefully, it feels like getting poked by an infant.