If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(USA Today)   If there is anyone who values free speech, it's me, a tenured professor. That's why I think the producer of the Mohammed Youtube should be put in jail   (usatoday.com) divider line 474
    More: Dumbass, religious tolerance, American Living  
•       •       •

7641 clicks; posted to Main » on 14 Sep 2012 at 7:49 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



474 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-09-14 11:38:44 PM

TheDumbBlonde: Indubitably: boozehat: I'm sure this has been asked, but I'm too lazy to read the whole thread.

He should be arrested, tried, and put in jail for what? What Federal, State, County, City, etc.... law was broken?

Intentionally inciting people to kill other people in the name of obfuscation via a video produced with monies gathered and intentionally created to hurt people?

Run for Congress.


You pay then?
 
2012-09-14 11:43:20 PM

boozehat: sirrerun: Extremists who are looking for an excuse to riot or kill can be set off by anything.
The muslims are very selective sometimes about what does and doesn't "offend" them.

That said, Sambecile is a cowardly cock POS who should have died in place of that diplomat (and the others).

It's one thing to criticize Islam's (and other religions') real excesses and ridicule Muslim holy cows, but this guy went way out of his way to provoke unstable people, all while hiding behind both anonymity and the West's proud free speech traditions.

While he may not be legally liable for those deaths, he certainly is morally culpable (and hopefully civilly responsible in a wrongful death suit). 

Fark him.

I actually took a different take on the 14 minutes of the film I saw. I thought it was like a real-world "Team America". I would like to see the entire thing. Fairly entertaining in my book.


Yeap this. I watched a bit and thought "this looks like a cheezy middle eastern postal 2"

they are rioting over this turd?
 
2012-09-14 11:59:49 PM

King Something: If you think this film should be protected speech (especially since it was made for the express purpose of getting Muslims riled up), you should try yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, saying "bomb" at an airport, calling "mayday" three times in succession over a radio, or calling 911 a dozen times in an hour.


The most unintelligent, misguided statement is saying this is like yelling FIRE in a movie theater or BOMB in an airport. Nobody was forced to watch or even acknowledge this movie... the film maker may be an absolute asshat but that's his right and he's entitled to it just like so many of the same people here who use Christianity as their punching bag. So I guess if Christians want the bashing to stop all they have to do is promise a violent retaliation on innocent people and follow through with it? Are you people who are calling for arrest or punishment of the film maker also going to defend Christians and blame victims should they choose the same course?

Christians can now threaten violence and you all will defend them..next the Jews, maybe the gays, maybe the immigrants?

It is the precise goal of terrorism to enforce your will on others by threat of violence and cowardice and that is exactly what so many here are defending??

It's sad how many people here think a man should be punished for exercising his rights. Why is Islam off limits but not Christianity?

So you must logically also blame THEO VAN GOGH for his brutal murder...and had South Park aired you'd also blame Trey & Matt had they been attacked? So you must have also JUST AS VOCALLY supported and agreed with that CENSORSHIP?

Innocent farkin people are being killed over words...you're ok with that? People who had NOTHING to do with the film.
 
2012-09-15 12:00:14 AM

atomicmask: boozehat: sirrerun: Extremists who are looking for an excuse to riot or kill can be set off by anything.
The muslims are very selective sometimes about what does and doesn't "offend" them.

That said, Sambecile is a cowardly cock POS who should have died in place of that diplomat (and the others).

It's one thing to criticize Islam's (and other religions') real excesses and ridicule Muslim holy cows, but this guy went way out of his way to provoke unstable people, all while hiding behind both anonymity and the West's proud free speech traditions.

While he may not be legally liable for those deaths, he certainly is morally culpable (and hopefully civilly responsible in a wrongful death suit). 

Fark him.

I actually took a different take on the 14 minutes of the film I saw. I thought it was like a real-world "Team America". I would like to see the entire thing. Fairly entertaining in my book.

Yeap this. I watched a bit and thought "this looks like a cheezy middle eastern postal 2"

they are rioting over this turd?


hehe... actually reminded me about one of my favorite movies, Wholey Moses! The all-star cast was awesome. I loved John Ritter as the Devil... "Trees? Do you like trees? Trees.... those were my idea." :)
 
2012-09-15 12:00:41 AM

batcookie: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: HotIgneous Intruder: TheDumbBlonde: I don't want you in a foxhole with me.

No sensible person would get in one with you either, I suspect.
Don't mistake my disgust for Islam to be unique; I regard all religions as delusion.
In the foxhole, you don't want someone who's worried about the afterlife.

Ummmm.... If she were deeply religious and considered herself saved, why would she be worried?

I think it was worded awkwardly... it's not "worried" so much as "eager to get there." Why the hell would anyone trust someone to actually give their all to keep everyone alive if they think there's a pretty white cloud kingdom waiting for them after they get a bullet in the eye? I mean, in theory, believing in heaven in a foxhole should be no different than a suicide bomber going "YEAH 40 VIRGINS biatchES! *boom*" I never could understand that one myself...


I think the difference is one of motivation. Christianity doesn't put a premium on letting the enemy kill you.
 
2012-09-15 12:01:52 AM

boozehat: atomicmask: boozehat: sirrerun: Extremists who are looking for an excuse to riot or kill can be set off by anything.
The muslims are very selective sometimes about what does and doesn't "offend" them.

That said, Sambecile is a cowardly cock POS who should have died in place of that diplomat (and the others).

It's one thing to criticize Islam's (and other religions') real excesses and ridicule Muslim holy cows, but this guy went way out of his way to provoke unstable people, all while hiding behind both anonymity and the West's proud free speech traditions.

While he may not be legally liable for those deaths, he certainly is morally culpable (and hopefully civilly responsible in a wrongful death suit). 

Fark him.

I actually took a different take on the 14 minutes of the film I saw. I thought it was like a real-world "Team America". I would like to see the entire thing. Fairly entertaining in my book.

Yeap this. I watched a bit and thought "this looks like a cheezy middle eastern postal 2"

they are rioting over this turd?

hehe... actually reminded me about one of my favorite movies, Wholey Moses! The all-star cast was awesome. I loved John Ritter as the Devil... "Trees? Do you like trees? Trees.... those were my idea." :)


Mr. President?

;)
 
2012-09-15 12:07:42 AM
This guy is a jerk, but I really doubt he thought his Youtube movie would have this effect -- I mean, how much garbage is on Youtube already? I can't believe this is the only offensive, anti-Islam homemade video on that site, there are probably hundreds if not thousands of them. It's not like it went viral in countries where internet access is common and then was noticed by net users in places like Egypt, where net access is rarer. The only reason this thing is causing riots is because someone decided that their pre-planned attacks needed a cover story and went looking for one. If this movie hadn't existed, they would have found something else, on Youtube or somewhere else, and then this idiot professor would be calling for some other person's jailing with the implication that they were the one who caused it all.

Nobody caused this except the rioters and the imams and television broadcasters who stoked the fire.
 
2012-09-15 12:13:14 AM

Snarfangel: Yoyo:
//breaking 3 laws as I type
///guess which 3

Speaking in church, cursing your parents, and committing adultery.


I should be so lucky to be committing adultery. Also, I'm a guy, so it's cool if I speak in church.
 
2012-09-15 12:14:51 AM

StoPPeRmobile: Yoyo: Never share a foxhole with anyone crazier than yourself.

That's dumb. Someone needs to check if the coast is clear.


I said crazier, not dumber.
 
2012-09-15 12:16:32 AM
why doesn't somebody show copies of that Jesus vs. the vampires movie to the Islamic world, and show that we make all kinds of bad movies over here.

The producer was an asshole but we have the right to free speech over here, including making stupidly offensive movies. Get over it Muslims. If Allah and Mohammed are so great, why do you care how they are portrayed?

\atheist
 
2012-09-15 12:17:29 AM
25.media.tumblr.com
Free speech is well and good. But doing this in real life, Will get your ass kicked.
 
2012-09-15 12:21:13 AM
Q: To those saying the filmmaker should be punished and defending the radicals reaction, why won't any of you answer this?

If Christians began violently killing innocent people for another person's offensive words, would you defend them just as much? Since its clear by so many that Islam is off limits, wouldn't it be hypocritical to not offer the same support should Christians, Jews or really ANY group say they'd do the same should they be offended? If not...why Islam and nobody else?

I suppose you agree that anyone can use terrorism to protect themselves from free speech and criticism because clearly its working for Muslims. Hypocritical not to.

Also, nobody was FORCED to watch this film...nobody had to acknowledge it... and you're okay with punishing someone for that?
 
2012-09-15 12:25:28 AM

RenownedCurator: This guy is a jerk, but I really doubt he thought his Youtube movie would have this effect -- I mean, how much garbage is on Youtube already? I can't believe this is the only offensive, anti-Islam homemade video on that site, there are probably hundreds if not thousands of them. It's not like it went viral in countries where internet access is common and then was noticed by net users in places like Egypt, where net access is rarer. The only reason this thing is causing riots is because someone decided that their pre-planned attacks needed a cover story and went looking for one. If this movie hadn't existed, they would have found something else, on Youtube or somewhere else, and then this idiot professor would be calling for some other person's jailing with the implication that they were the one who caused it all.

Nobody caused this except the rioters and the imams and television broadcasters who stoked the fire.


Thank you. If I were a smarter man, I might have said something like this.

I really think the fundamental argument about the responsibilities of free speech here are worth having, but this is not the circumstance to have it. I do think the guy probably had provocation in mind. If I under the history right, this is the Quran burning guy from last year. His motives are suspect. But I respect your views on it and we don't have to rehash the thing.

My point was, the individual people who did this are murderous bastards who were gonna kill some Americans that day regardless of the stupid movie. It's a valuable conversation to have, but we demean the conversation and more importantly the victims of this atrocity by having it in these circumstances. I am a jackass because I succumbed to the impulse to argue it.

Okay, really done now. Thank you for doing what I couldn't. Take care, folks.
 
2012-09-15 12:29:46 AM

HaveBeerWillTravel: RenownedCurator: This guy is a jerk, but I really doubt he thought his Youtube movie would have this effect -- I mean, how much garbage is on Youtube already? I can't believe this is the only offensive, anti-Islam homemade video on that site, there are probably hundreds if not thousands of them. It's not like it went viral in countries where internet access is common and then was noticed by net users in places like Egypt, where net access is rarer. The only reason this thing is causing riots is because someone decided that their pre-planned attacks needed a cover story and went looking for one. If this movie hadn't existed, they would have found something else, on Youtube or somewhere else, and then this idiot professor would be calling for some other person's jailing with the implication that they were the one who caused it all.

Nobody caused this except the rioters and the imams and television broadcasters who stoked the fire.

Thank you. If I were a smarter man, I might have said something like this.

I really think the fundamental argument about the responsibilities of free speech here are worth having, but this is not the circumstance to have it. I do think the guy probably had provocation in mind. If I under the history right, this is the Quran burning guy from last year. His motives are suspect. But I respect your views on it and we don't have to rehash the thing.

My point was, the individual people who did this are murderous bastards who were gonna kill some Americans that day regardless of the stupid movie. It's a valuable conversation to have, but we demean the conversation and more importantly the victims of this atrocity by having it in these circumstances. I am a jackass because I succumbed to the impulse to argue it.

Okay, really done now. Thank you for doing what I couldn't. Take care, folks.


Almost perfect except for "under history," too telling, really. Okay, you win. ;)
 
2012-09-15 12:30:03 AM
Scenario 1, located in Washington DC: "So Fark, I heard there is a video on the AlAqsaTube dot com that insults Christianity. It's made by an Indonesian. Let's go protest in front of the Indonesian embassy! There's a militia that hates Indonesia, let's go tell them."

Scenario 2, located in Benghazi: "So Furq, I heard there is a video on the YouTube dot com that insults Islam. It's made by an American. Let's go protest in front of the American embassy! There's a militia that hates America, let's go tell them."

It's important to understand the culture differences that makes this seem stone-cold retarded here but seems like wisdom there. Seriously.  It will help us gauge what roles and interventions we should be taking with regards to other countries.
 
2012-09-15 12:30:24 AM

Indubitably: HaveBeerWillTravel: RenownedCurator: This guy is a jerk, but I really doubt he thought his Youtube movie would have this effect -- I mean, how much garbage is on Youtube already? I can't believe this is the only offensive, anti-Islam homemade video on that site, there are probably hundreds if not thousands of them. It's not like it went viral in countries where internet access is common and then was noticed by net users in places like Egypt, where net access is rarer. The only reason this thing is causing riots is because someone decided that their pre-planned attacks needed a cover story and went looking for one. If this movie hadn't existed, they would have found something else, on Youtube or somewhere else, and then this idiot professor would be calling for some other person's jailing with the implication that they were the one who caused it all.

Nobody caused this except the rioters and the imams and television broadcasters who stoked the fire.

Thank you. If I were a smarter man, I might have said something like this.

I really think the fundamental argument about the responsibilities of free speech here are worth having, but this is not the circumstance to have it. I do think the guy probably had provocation in mind. If I under the history right, this is the Quran burning guy from last year. His motives are suspect. But I respect your views on it and we don't have to rehash the thing.

My point was, the individual people who did this are murderous bastards who were gonna kill some Americans that day regardless of the stupid movie. It's a valuable conversation to have, but we demean the conversation and more importantly the victims of this atrocity by having it in these circumstances. I am a jackass because I succumbed to the impulse to argue it.

Okay, really done now. Thank you for doing what I couldn't. Take care, folks.

Almost perfect except for "under history," too telling, really. Okay, you win. ;)


Just kidding.

Nobody wins.
 
2012-09-15 12:37:01 AM
On the other hand we did have those gentlemen who shot up the Sikh temple and the theater not too many weeks ago. So, I guess we have fewer violent mouthbreathers, BUT they are more lethal.
 
2012-09-15 12:38:57 AM

Indubitably: Just kidding.

Nobody wins.


Not so fast bucko. www.iwon.com
 
2012-09-15 12:40:47 AM

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: batcookie: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: HotIgneous Intruder: TheDumbBlonde: I don't want you in a foxhole with me.

No sensible person would get in one with you either, I suspect.
Don't mistake my disgust for Islam to be unique; I regard all religions as delusion.
In the foxhole, you don't want someone who's worried about the afterlife.

Ummmm.... If she were deeply religious and considered herself saved, why would she be worried?

I think it was worded awkwardly... it's not "worried" so much as "eager to get there." Why the hell would anyone trust someone to actually give their all to keep everyone alive if they think there's a pretty white cloud kingdom waiting for them after they get a bullet in the eye? I mean, in theory, believing in heaven in a foxhole should be no different than a suicide bomber going "YEAH 40 VIRGINS biatchES! *boom*" I never could understand that one myself...

I think the difference is one of motivation. Christianity doesn't put a premium on letting the enemy kill you.


And yet the basic mentality is the same - this life doesn't matter because as long as you follow the rules, something way better's coming later. Just doesn't make sense that it would lend itself to celebrating survival instinct. *shrug* Religious psychology always amused me. In fact, I did my research on it in college... and found out first hand how pissed off people get when you toy with their beliefs. Kind of hilarious, except for the bloodshed it so often leads to.
 
2012-09-15 12:41:03 AM
If some over zealous Americans heard about a video on YouTube of Muslims burning the American flag and decided to attack a foreign nation's embassy murdering innocent people who had nothing to do with the video...would so many of you blame the guy who made the video? You know damn well that you'd be in a frenzy about the gun-nut, republican, bigot who pulled the trigger rather than spinning his actions into defensible behavior like you are here. You surely would be defending the rights of the protestors to burn the flag.

For whatever reason, many liberals treat Islam as a protected class while in the same breath righteously demeaning and condemning Christianity and other religions. It's a very strange contradiction but as these threads prove...it's pretty rampant. I wonder if they truthfully see that hypocrisy or if they really believe it's somehow different.
 
2012-09-15 12:41:11 AM
I like the statement that this is different than the last temptation of christ because it inflamed people half a world away.

its OKAY to inflame people here, just not half a world away.
 
2012-09-15 12:42:23 AM
No one, no matter WHO they are has a right not to be offended or inflammed.

every citizen of this country has a right to express their opinion.

I know thats not how it works in colleges, but it IS how it works everywhere else in the country, so yeah, one can see why a college professor would be confused.
 
2012-09-15 12:43:01 AM

violentsalvation: And this is nothing like yelling fire in a theater.


You're right, this was more like someone going into a crowded theater and yelling "fire", but instead of the people having the natural reaction of fleeing (with someone possibly being injured) they actually set the theater on fire. The responsibility is still on the people who start the fire. 

/Waits for the Billy Joel reference.
 
2012-09-15 12:43:09 AM

JungleBoogie: Indubitably: Just kidding.

Nobody wins.

Not so fast bucko. www.iwon.com


That's Master Bucko, sir.

You'd do right to remember that, please.

Thank you.
 
2012-09-15 12:44:47 AM

un_farking_real: violentsalvation: And this is nothing like yelling fire in a theater.

You're right, this was more like someone going into a crowded theater and yelling "fire", but instead of the people having the natural reaction of fleeing (with someone possibly being injured) they actually set the theater on fire. The responsibility is still on the people who start the fire. 

/Waits for the Billy Joel reference.


www.squarepins.org

/... Oh, was that not what you meant?
 
2012-09-15 12:50:12 AM

Indubitably: JungleBoogie: Indubitably: Just kidding.

Nobody wins.

Not so fast bucko. www.iwon.com

That's Master Bucko, sir.

You'd do right to remember that, please.

Thank you.


Terribly sorry. The title is now seared into my brain like a hot brand is seared onto the unwilling buttock of a steer.

Regards,
Elizabeth II, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith
 
2012-09-15 12:58:22 AM

JungleBoogie: Indubitably: JungleBoogie: Indubitably: Just kidding.

Nobody wins.

Not so fast bucko. www.iwon.com

That's Master Bucko, sir.

You'd do right to remember that, please.

Thank you.

Terribly sorry. The title is now seared into my brain like a hot brand is seared onto the unwilling buttock of a steer.

Regards,
Elizabeth II, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith


Meh, Master Bucko is better than all that, assuredly.
 
2012-09-15 01:10:13 AM

Dancin_In_Anson: St_Francis_P: There is a line you can cross, like yelling "fire" in a crowded theater.

Shot to hell in about 1 minute.


thanks!!!
 
2012-09-15 01:15:02 AM

TheDumbBlonde: Next thing you know, my pulled pork BBQ will be considered inciteful. Then it will get ugly.


FARKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK
 
2012-09-15 01:21:15 AM
Free speech is free speech. We don't change that because some scum of the earth thugs start rioting. You send over a few thousand marines and you kick a little ass. We will continue to battle these little minded countries forever on religious freedoms.

Just remember that security and freedom are on opposite sides of a scale. Whenever security goes up, freedom goes down, and vice versa. If you are swayed to give up your freedoms so easily, you should probably read 1984 and Brave New World.They will give you an idea of what the world may be like when the security seriously outweighs the freedom.

If nothing else, they are great reads.
 
2012-09-15 01:28:08 AM
For whatever reason, many liberals treat Islam as a protected class while in the same breath righteously demeaning and condemning Christianity and other religions. It's a very strange contradiction but as these threads prove...it's pretty rampant. I wonder if they truthfully see that hypocrisy or if they really believe it's somehow different. 

I have always wondered this exact same thing. Why fark loves Islam so much. I have two theories. First is the adage about the enemy of my enemy is my friend so since Islam hates both Jews and Christians I suppose it has a special place in fark's heart. The second is simply fear. Muslims do some very violent things when riled up. You can post denigrating pictures of Christ and have movies about Him being peed on by goats all day long and all you really get is some strongly worded letters. Say something about Islam people die.
 
2012-09-15 01:31:35 AM
Jail is too good for the people that made this video. They should be put on a plane to the middle east along with a care package of dull machetes.
 
2012-09-15 01:41:43 AM
But when Christians complained about "Piss Christ" and the shiat covered statue of the Virgin Mary, art designed to offend, they were ignored, called fascists and told to grow up. and stop whining. Make a film that offends Muslims these SAME people scream OMG jail the MFer and take away his right to free speech! Ya gotta love Farkers.
 
2012-09-15 01:52:13 AM
There are a lot of tenured professors and some of them are idiots. Are there any professions free of feckless clowns.
 
2012-09-15 01:53:15 AM

St_Francis_P: I don't agree, but it's not like the 1st Amendment offers ironclad protection. There is a line you can cross, like yelling "fire" in a crowded theater.


The 2nd amendment is the only one with no limits.
 
2012-09-15 02:02:56 AM

gilgigamesh: For a tenured professor, that was barely coherent, let alone a solid argument advocating the filmmaker's guilt for some crime or another.

Now here's my response: The author was an idiot, and she needs to keep her damn piehole shut. Yes, the film was probably designed to be deliberately provocative to Muslims. So what? If we start tailoring first amendment protections to the sensibilities of people with the impulse control of children, who react to a little harmless prodding with riots and murder, just go ahead and chuck the farking constitution out the window.

Because the minute you teach people like that breaking shiat will get them their way when their widdle feewings have been hurt, guess what will happen? The same thing that happens when you reinforce bad behavior in children.


That's what really struck me about the situation. Since when is it okay to start a riot, damage property, and kill people because you saw a crappy youtube video?
 
2012-09-15 02:21:31 AM

HotIgneous Intruder: chemical_angel: More and more often I find myself, while very often liberal on issues, very much not wanting to be associated with "liberals."

I hear that. I self-identified as a liberal for decades before I realized I was actually a paleoconservative.
It's a hard journey to make; realizing people are idiots and that you were of their tribe is difficult but cathartic.

/Mamet's piece on why he is no longer a brain-dead liberal is pretty good, despite the cringe-worthy title. Google it.


im still a proud brain-dead liberal and this anti-free speech line is horseshiat

both sides got farkwits.

/but not bsbsvr
 
2012-09-15 02:24:29 AM
I've been watching these threads and I can't take it anymore. Here's my opinion, speaking as someone who served in the United States Army for four years until I was injured in Iraq. I've dealt with this culture and seen how the 'mob mentality' is culturally accepted as justification for any action.
It's time to take the gloves off. The next time an embassy gets 'stormed', we evacuate our people, let the crowd of attackers gather around the building to celebrate, and then white phosphorous bomb the crowd that is on the US soil within the embassy grounds. A hundred agonizingly mummified corpses around the embassy (Which will be incredibly photogenic) will send a clear message: You fark with the United States, you will die a slow painful agonizing death. We've seen how they react to "We want to be your friends and help you." Geneva convention does NOT apply to them.
Go ahead and try to attack the embassy of any other country in the world and see if you survive. We're trying to 'be nice' to a group of people that have absolutely no interest in playing nice. They're not even really mad at the United States, they're just going with whatever socially acceptable reason there is to murder and pillage. These are the 'people' that went on pillaging sprees from a Dutch newspaper comic.

Of course, no politician will do something like this. That will be the downfall of our country, soft people wanting soft politicians to tell them soft lies about how everything is going to be fine and that 'freedoms will be restored after the crisis has passed.'
 
2012-09-15 02:26:02 AM
It's a sad comment on today's state of affairs that people consider offending a Muslim to be equivalent to a dangerous act like yelling fire in a crowded theatre.
 
2012-09-15 02:33:32 AM

Securitywyrm: I've been watching these threads and I can't take it anymore. Here's my opinion, speaking as someone who served in the United States Army for four years until I was injured in Iraq. I've dealt with this culture and seen how the 'mob mentality' is culturally accepted as justification for any action.
It's time to take the gloves off. The next time an embassy gets 'stormed', we evacuate our people, let the crowd of attackers gather around the building to celebrate, and then white phosphorous bomb the crowd that is on the US soil within the embassy grounds. A hundred agonizingly mummified corpses around the embassy (Which will be incredibly photogenic) will send a clear message: You fark with the United States, you will die a slow painful agonizing death. We've seen how they react to "We want to be your friends and help you." Geneva convention does NOT apply to them.
Go ahead and try to attack the embassy of any other country in the world and see if you survive. We're trying to 'be nice' to a group of people that have absolutely no interest in playing nice. They're not even really mad at the United States, they're just going with whatever socially acceptable reason there is to murder and pillage. These are the 'people' that went on pillaging sprees from a Dutch newspaper comic.

Of course, no politician will do something like this. That will be the downfall of our country, soft people wanting soft politicians to tell them soft lies about how everything is going to be fine and that 'freedoms will be restored after the crisis has passed.'


www.meanwhilepics.com
 
2012-09-15 02:38:48 AM

Bucky Katt: St_Francis_P: I don't agree, but it's not like the 1st Amendment offers ironclad protection. There is a line you can cross, like yelling "fire" in a crowded theater.

The 2nd amendment is the only one with no limits.


Really? Fantastic! I'll pick up a couple RPG's in the morning, those trees do need a trimmin', and I'll look at some shoulder-fired anti-aircraft options, those crows are getting on my nerves. I was thinking of going USA BABY and getting a Stinger but a Grouse is half the price.
 
2012-09-15 02:39:44 AM

Agent Nick Fury: Kaybeck: gilgigamesh: Ambivalence: free speech does not protect you from legal repercussions of yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater that causes deaths and injuries by trampling.

If you INTEND yoru speech to incite a riot, you are legally liable for the results of that riot.

*sigh*

Sigh all you like but he's exactly right.

Speech has power. That's why the 1st amendment exists, so people who are threatened by powerful speech can't suppress it.

Taking shiat about Mohammed has power. The creator of the video was aware of this and knowingly wielded that power in a manner that he knew would cause destruction and chaos.

With power comes responsibility. He wielded that power as a weapon. It was irresponsible and there needs to face repercussions for it.

I always look to quoters of Spiderman comic books as voices of intelligence.


said "agent nick fury"
 
2012-09-15 02:48:51 AM
Was the movie responsible for rioting?

Cartoons depicting Mohammad caused rioting.
Someone suggesting that Islam is a violent religion caused rioting.

In other words, anything can cause rioting in the Middle East. They don't actually need a reason to riot. Some Imam just needs to work a group into a frenzy over something we consider trivial and the fun begins.
 
2012-09-15 03:00:12 AM

King Something: If you think this film should be protected speech (especially since it was made for the express purpose of getting Muslims riled up), you should try yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, saying "bomb" at an airport, calling "mayday" three times in succession over a radio, or calling 911 a dozen times in an hour.


No.

Doing something you know will piss off someone is not the same as yelling fire in a crowded theater.

He's within his rights to express himself despite how much you or others hate him for it. He's clearly not posing a danger to himself or others. Others might pose a danger to him because of what he has done, but we don't just abridge our rights because some asshole half a world away gets pissed.

Basically, what the fark is wrong with you?
 
2012-09-15 03:02:52 AM

Securitywyrm: I've been watching these threads and I can't take it anymore. Here's my opinion, speaking as someone who served in the United States Army for four years until I was injured in Iraq. I've dealt with this culture and seen how the 'mob mentality' is culturally accepted as justification for any action.
It's time to take the gloves off. The next time an embassy gets 'stormed', we evacuate our people, let the crowd of attackers gather around the building to celebrate, and then white phosphorous bomb the crowd that is on the US soil within the embassy grounds. A hundred agonizingly mummified corpses around the embassy (Which will be incredibly photogenic) will send a clear message: You fark with the United States, you will die a slow painful agonizing death. We've seen how they react to "We want to be your friends and help you." Geneva convention does NOT apply to them.
Go ahead and try to attack the embassy of any other country in the world and see if you survive. We're trying to 'be nice' to a group of people that have absolutely no interest in playing nice. They're not even really mad at the United States, they're just going with whatever socially acceptable reason there is to murder and pillage. These are the 'people' that went on pillaging sprees from a Dutch newspaper comic.

Of course, no politician will do something like this. That will be the downfall of our country, soft people wanting soft politicians to tell them soft lies about how everything is going to be fine and that 'freedoms will be restored after the crisis has passed.'


As a peace loving Canadian... I like this plan.

/Except the white phosphorous
//How about a daisy cutter instead? It would be quick.
 
2012-09-15 03:12:20 AM

batcookie: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: batcookie: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: HotIgneous Intruder: TheDumbBlonde: I don't want you in a foxhole with me.

No sensible person would get in one with you either, I suspect.
Don't mistake my disgust for Islam to be unique; I regard all religions as delusion.
In the foxhole, you don't want someone who's worried about the afterlife.

Ummmm.... If she were deeply religious and considered herself saved, why would she be worried?

I think it was worded awkwardly... it's not "worried" so much as "eager to get there." Why the hell would anyone trust someone to actually give their all to keep everyone alive if they think there's a pretty white cloud kingdom waiting for them after they get a bullet in the eye? I mean, in theory, believing in heaven in a foxhole should be no different than a suicide bomber going "YEAH 40 VIRGINS biatchES! *boom*" I never could understand that one myself...

I think the difference is one of motivation. Christianity doesn't put a premium on letting the enemy kill you.

And yet the basic mentality is the same - this life doesn't matter because as long as you follow the rules, something way better's coming later. Just doesn't make sense that it would lend itself to celebrating survival instinct. *shrug* Religious psychology always amused me. In fact, I did my research on it in college... and found out first hand how pissed off people get when you toy with their beliefs. Kind of hilarious, except for the bloodshed it so often leads to.


You have a valid point. However I would maintain that the pragmatic "experimental results" (Christian warrior battlefield behavior compared to Muslim warrior battlefield behavior) tend to show a pronounced behavioral difference.

Actually, I don't think the above is correct. I am not aware, off the top of my head, of any instances where either any Christian OR Muslim soldiers who have acted with casual disregard for their own safety and the safety of their comrades. Irregular (terrorist fighter) Muslims, perhaps. But not trained troops.

I HAVE heard anecdotal instances of both acting in a self-sacrificial manner to save comrades (falling on grenade, etc.).

I really don't think it is a problem; you're over-thinking it and ascribing behavior/thoughts that generally don't exist.
 
2012-09-15 03:16:36 AM
We need some kickstarters aimed at making the prophet look bad. Drive the batshiat nutjobs absolutely, well, batshiat.

If anyone in Southern CA wants to video guys pissing on a Koran give me a honk, I'm up for it. Hell, I'll take a dump on it but won't let you video it.

And yes, I understand this was prolly a planned attack. But the crowds of nutjobs with their balls in a vice tells me they need to be shown their place. Which is in an outhouse. The first floor.
 
2012-09-15 03:17:04 AM

Delawheredad: But when Christians complained about "Piss Christ" and the shiat covered statue of the Virgin Mary, art designed to offend, they were ignored, called fascists and told to grow up. and stop whining. Make a film that offends Muslims these SAME people scream OMG jail the MFer and take away his right to free speech! Ya gotta love Farkers.


there was no shiat covered statue of the virgin mary

you're thinking of a painting "the holy virgin mary" by chris ofili. it's on google and it's a beautiful piece i got to see in person. when i saw it, I was like "this is what everyone's crapping their pants about?" it was not art "designed to offend". why don't you try researching first what you seem to be so strongly offended by?

you have not seen it, can't even the medium correct.

you are more similar to offended muslims who have not even seen this film than you would like to admit
 
2012-09-15 03:21:52 AM
LIBEL is not a form of Free Speech. If you actually watched the video, which I did, it wasn't expressing views about Islam. It was making wild accusations against Mohammed based on NOTHING, portraying him as a Rapist, Child Molester and engaging in Bestiality. It wasn't made in Parody. It was made to deliberately incite Muslims to violence.

If this movie was made about a living person, that person could sue the Producers for Libel and would overwhelmingly WIN the case. But Mohammed is dead, so apparently he's fair game.

The video was so amateurish that Muslims taking the Troll-bait ought to be ashamed of themselves. If the Muslim world wants to join the Global Community, they need to evolve a thicker skin and realize a*holes are out there and not expect every government to protect them from every random jerk. And take it out on every tolerant Government of Jerks to say random crap for offending their sensibilities.
 
2012-09-15 03:33:08 AM

sunsawed: LIBEL is not a form of Free Speech. If you actually watched the video, which I did, it wasn't expressing views about Islam. It was making wild accusations against Mohammed based on NOTHING, portraying him as a Rapist, Child Molester and engaging in Bestiality. It wasn't made in Parody. It was made to deliberately incite Muslims to violence.

If this movie was made about a living person, that person could sue the Producers for Libel and would overwhelmingly WIN the case. But Mohammed is dead, so apparently he's fair game.

The video was so amateurish that Muslims taking the Troll-bait ought to be ashamed of themselves. If the Muslim world wants to join the Global Community, they need to evolve a thicker skin and realize a*holes are out there and not expect every government to protect them from every random jerk. And take it out on every tolerant Government of Jerks to say random crap for offending their sensibilities.


um, you can't LIBEL a dead person. let alone a probably fictional historical one who can't sue for LIBEL in court

fail
 
Displayed 50 of 474 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report