WillyChase: rebelpride644: WillyChase: rebelpride644: BMulligan: The Dog Ate The Constitution: Can't bomb these goat farkers fast enough.

The world will be a better place on the day that you leave it.

So it's ok for you to wish death on someone??

Uh, he didn't wish death on anyone. If you can't tell the difference between those two statements you quoted then maybe you should just sit your bad self down before you make yourself look stupid again.

Unless he is leaving this world in a farking spaceship they are both advocating another's death.

If I say "The world will be a better place when Fred Phelps leaves it" it doesn't mean I wish for Fred Phelps to die, just that when he's gone the world will be a better place.

If I say "Can't bomb these westborough farkers fast enough" it means I wish for them to be killed by a bomb.

See the difference Rebel Pride?

I understand the difference...my point was that the underlying goal of both statements is the same.

Also, thanks for bringing up my Login as if that invalidates my argument.

HotIgneous Intruder: Ow! That was my feelings!: HotIgneous Intruder: Ow! That was my feelings!: Dear Subby,

America has no anti-hate speech laws, not "less strict".

signed,
Duh

But we have "hate crime" laws. That's why the Justice Dept. is investigating our buddy Sambecile.
His speech may be protected, but he is not.
Hard life.

I understand they are looking into the guy, but "hate crime" is a sentence "enhancer", not an actual crime. He will not face charges because his speech is protected by the first amendment. There is no initial crime for the hate crime enhancer to be used.

United States Federal law addresses hate crimes and provides penalties:
18 USC § 249 - Hate crime acts
As I keep saying, his speech is protected, but he is not.

I guess I'm dense today, but I'm not getting your "he is not" protected comment. The code you linked too clearly states "willfully causes bodily injury" or attempts to do so. I haven't seen the trailer, but from what I've read there is no direct threats made and obviously no direct violence. So, his speech and his freedom to be a dick are protected by the first.

smitty04: [img.photobucket.com image 456x386]

Moderate Muslims, demonstrating for peace:

Bonzo_1116: Actually they don't, and it's a big big problem. Youth unemployment in the middle east is like 50% or some shiat. That's a lot of young men with nothing to do but sweat in the heat and get angry. They can't even have a beer and go to a titty bar to blow off steam. And most of them still live at home with their mothers.

I feel like a lot of the hard-line governments and fundies that curtail entertainment activities do it with the cynical aim of maintaining a perennial crop of always-frustrated young stooges.

halfof33: PsiChick: If anyone's surprised, I'd like to remind you that America has spent the past fifty years propping up a country with the manners of Hulk on steroid smoothies and spent the past twenty years in two wars that caused thousands of civilian casualties, major human rights violations, stomped all over the idea of the Arab League's rights to deal with the ME their own way, left two countries in shambles, and opened up the idea that America can attack anyone, anywhere, without any consequences.

Yeah. I am Jack's complete and utter lack of shock right about now.

Wow, a libtard making about justifications and excuses for violance against America.

Yeah. I am Jack's complete and utter lack of shock right about now.

Hey, you missed the fact that America was wearing a really tight skirt, and was just BEGGING for it.

The phrase 'strawman argument' is a name for a debating technique, when you claim that the other person said something that they did not, in fact, say. Now, you've used a brilliant example. Your argument here is that I am making justifications and excuses for the embassy attacks.

On its face, that argument is just stupid. I was talking about being unsurprised about the attacks, not about the morality of the attacks. But there's certainly a way for your argument to make complete sense, halfof33--if we assume, as so many people do, that when you say 'that serial killer has schizophrenia', it's another way of saying 'that serial killer should be let off all charges'.

This is another common debating technique that relies on complete and utter idiocy, although I don't know if it has a formal name. If I understand that X + 3 =23, therefore X = 20, does that mean I think X is a ridiculous number for cupcakes served to one child? Of course not. I may believe both separately, but knowing that X = 20 doesn't have a damn thing to do with cupcakes. In more accurate terms, knowledge itself does not require specific action.

In simple English, when you understand that X = 20, you are not required to do a damn thing with knowing that. And that means that, when someone says 'well, I'm not surprised this and that happened', you honestly do not know what sort of judgement they're making on the actual event. You can't. You don't have enough information.

Now, as it so happens, I wholeheartedly condemn the attacks and would like to see the attackers in jail and awaiting trial. But that's not something you could reasonably assume to know or not know based on what I said. Therefore, you have what is known as a strawman argument.

And the saddest part of all of this is that you could know everything I've said here by taking a high school debate class.

Make fun of a Christian and they say they'll pray for your soul in hell.

Make fun of a Muslim, well, let's just say you better have a bomb-sniffing dog around at all times.

halfof33: PsiChick: . I was talking about being unsurprised about the attacks, not about the morality of the attacks. .

Wow! That is A LOT of words, good for you, sugar.

here is a few more words that, curiously, did not make it into your little rant:

"If anyone's surprised, I'd like to remind you that America has spent the past fifty years propping up a country with the manners of Hulk on steroid smoothies and spent the past twenty years in two wars that caused thousands of civilian casualties, major human rights violations, stomped all over the idea of the Arab League's rights to deal with the ME their own way, left two countries in shambles, and opened up the idea that America can attack anyone, anywhere, without any consequences."

The funny thing is you wrote those words. My mistake was reading them, huh, champ?

"if anyone's surprised..." Face palm.

Great post, and borderline incomprehensible follow up. Thanks for posting.

Fine, then, I'll use small words for you.

I condemn the attacks. I am not surprised they happened.

I also didn't think I needed to spell the first one out or be accused of supporting farking murderers. My bad. Apparently we live in a society where people are too stupid to differentiate.

jso2897: PsiChick: halfof33: PsiChick:

You are engaged in the equivalent of trying to teach a dog calculus.

I used to be roughly where that guy is--I knew you were supposed to say X, Y, and Z, but couldn't figure out why, so sometimes I'd think X was Z. I learned and got better. Maybe he can too.

/Although I'm not really being incredibly patient today...I need more coffee.

halfof33: Blue_Blazer: The statements with the "but" clause signify that the speaker is able to understand causality.

FACE PALM. Understand casuality? Are you serious? The second examples falsely and fallaciously ascribe causes that blame the victim.

Unbelievable.

/the rape hypotheical is the classic example of the fallacious arguments you people are making.

It's pretty silly to suggest the history of US involvement in the middle east is akin to wearing a skirt and too much makeup.