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.

(LA Times)   Taking filmmakers into custody for questioning, complete with perp walk: another thing that's perfectly okay when your guy is in charge but was an outrageous Orwellian crushing of dissent beforehand   (latimesblogs.latimes.com) divider line 409
    More: Asinine, muslims, perp walk, Los Angeles County, innocent  
•       •       •

3541 clicks; posted to Politics » on 15 Sep 2012 at 3:02 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-09-15 04:21:40 PM  

gameshowhost: But that's a poor analogy, as "bear poking" would have to be a constitutionally-protected right... which is dramatically different from the absence of a law against "bear poking".

/just sayin


No analogy is perfect, and the legality of bear poking is irrelevant. It's a description of moral culpability.
 
2012-09-15 04:27:19 PM  
Boy, have I got news for the clerics and Arab-Springers who just now seem to have discovered the internet and youtube: You're gonna be protesting 'till the sun burns out, unless you grow some thicker skin. I'm guessing there are thousands of youtube videos denouncing Islam. There are whole web sites devoted to condemning the prophet as a pedophile, a thief, and a murderous rampaging bastage who promotes slavery and rape. Not to mention news sites, blogs and social networks in multiple languages with comments that say the same things. Must be in the millions by now.

Maybe in a couple of years, they'll look back at all this and think "Whoo-hoo, were we a bunch of idiots to go apeshiat over that stupid video or what?"
 
2012-09-15 04:28:06 PM  
Gyrfalcon: Why is it so impossible to acknowledge both? Are you so into free speech you go around telling people "Goddamn, you're fat! Man, kid, you're so butt-ugly you should wear a bag on your head! Lady, if I had boobs like that, I'd have to be followed around by a crane!"

No, of course I don't go around doing things like that. It's not much fun to walk around and hurt people's feelings. However, our society has agreed, for quite some time now, that we are allowed to say things in public that irritate or even offend people.


I am not suggesting this guy be punished for his views, his stupid film, or anything else; but just as you would be at least morally culpable if you left that little kid in tears, so filmmakers are morally culpable for making movies that insult someone's beliefs on purpose with the knowledge that some of those believers are going to overreact. The statement "I'm sorry that you took my statement the wrong way" is not an apology OR an excuse--regardless whether it's a right-wing politician or an anti-religious filmmaker.

The moral culpability for the violence we have seen rests entirely with those who committed violence. Making fun of Islam, even in an incredibly obnoxious and crude way, is not an incitement to violence. It is used by Islamists as an excuse to incite violence. We have the right to be offensive. We do not have the right to bring physical violence to people when they piss us off.
 
2012-09-15 04:28:09 PM  

doyner: gameshowhost: But that's a poor analogy, as "bear poking" would have to be a constitutionally-protected right... which is dramatically different from the absence of a law against "bear poking".

/just sayin

No analogy is perfect, and the legality of bear poking is irrelevant. It's a description of moral culpability.


A bear is a wild animal, a predator, that acts on instinct. Humans are supposed to be able to disagree peaceably. I suppose if you want to call Muslims animals who need to be treated as such, that's on you. Personally, I hold them to the same standards as any other human beings.
 
2012-09-15 04:28:51 PM  

jenlen: s the film-maker an asshole? Yes, sure, no argument there from me. But he has every right to post/share his so-called "film" if he wants to here, just as that doofus down in Florida has every right to barbecue Korans (or Bibles, or Torahs, or even L Ron Hubbard Scientology books!) all he wants.

That doesn't excuse the savages who are killing people and attacking our embassies though.


I didn't say it did. We're basically on the same page here in realizing that both sides are assholes and both sides did nothing to prevent this.
 
2012-09-15 04:31:04 PM  
If there is any karma in the world someone will use their free speech rights to make a web site with pictures of him, his current address, criminal record, and any other information they can dig up about him legally.
 
2012-09-15 04:32:31 PM  

Weaver95: Gulper Eel: St_Francis_P: If he violated probation, it might indeed be involuntarily voluntary.

So do you think LA officials and the Feds would be this intensely interested if he had violated probation by uploading a video of his day at the zoo?

of course not. the probation violation is just the pretext.


If the guy actually gets charged with something and it feels trumped up, I'll be concerned.

Isn't also possible that this is a way of protecting the guy's life (and of those adjacent to him) without seeming like they're protecting him? This could be a diplomatic sleight of hand meant to buy time for the situation to cool.
 
2012-09-15 04:33:18 PM  

Nabb1: doyner: gameshowhost: But that's a poor analogy, as "bear poking" would have to be a constitutionally-protected right... which is dramatically different from the absence of a law against "bear poking".

/just sayin

No analogy is perfect, and the legality of bear poking is irrelevant. It's a description of moral culpability.

A bear is a wild animal, a predator, that acts on instinct. Humans are supposed to be able to disagree peaceably. I suppose if you want to call Muslims people who go into a murderous rage when intentionally offended animals who need to be treated as such, that's on you. Personally, I hold them to the same standards as any other human beings.


FIFY.

Nice broad brush, BTW.
 
2012-09-15 04:33:23 PM  

doyner: gameshowhost: But that's a poor analogy, as "bear poking" would have to be a constitutionally-protected right... which is dramatically different from the absence of a law against "bear poking".

/just sayin

No analogy is perfect, and the legality of bear poking is irrelevant. It's a description of moral culpability.


Of course no analogy is perfect; I was merely pointing out where his was seriously flawed. He could have made the same argument about the moral culpability of the act w/o changing the idea of "constitutionally protected right" to "no law preventing".

/for the record - i agree that the 'filmmaker' - and i use that term loosely - acted extremely irresponsibly
//i'm always amazed by how some people forget that rights bear commensurate responsibilities
 
2012-09-15 04:33:29 PM  

Nabb1: A bear is a wild animal, a predator, that acts on instinct. Humans are supposed to be able to disagree peaceably.


These aren't humans, they're fundamentalists. I'd hold a bear to a higher standard.
 
2012-09-15 04:33:32 PM  

dr_blasto: Weaver95: Gulper Eel: St_Francis_P: If he violated probation, it might indeed be involuntarily voluntary.

So do you think LA officials and the Feds would be this intensely interested if he had violated probation by uploading a video of his day at the zoo?

of course not. the probation violation is just the pretext.

If he had uploaded videos of his kids at the zoo, no one would have likely been aware. They suspect he uploaded some shiatty movie clips which are related to dumbasses going apeshiat and murdering people. If you're on probation, it is probably best not to call significant attention to yourself.

Of course, he may have not uploaded anything. If so, they'll have to let him go. If they want to, though, it is probably easy to find some silly thing to violate you back into custody while you're on probation. When the cops and DA don't like you, there are no real protections.


It's probation. It is supposed to work that way. You get more freedom than jail, but you aren't a free man yet. In return, the state saves money.
 
2012-09-15 04:35:53 PM  

PopularFront: Nabb1: A bear is a wild animal, a predator, that acts on instinct. Humans are supposed to be able to disagree peaceably.

These aren't humans, they're fundamentalists. I'd hold a bear to a higher standard.


So, you are saying those who defend Allah are animals. And if some jihadist reads this and is outrage and kills an American in retribution, may we hold you responsible for his death?
 
2012-09-15 04:36:02 PM  

Mrtraveler01:

That doesn't excuse the savages who are killing people and attacking our embassies though.

I didn't say it did. We're basically on the same page here in realizing that both sides are assholes and both sides did nothing to prevent this.


Yeah, I suppose so.

I've just seen way too many people posting online, laying most of the blame on this film. Yet, I've also seen links where they ask some of the rioters in Libya about the film, and they respond "What film are you speaking of?" o_O

Seems to me any excuse to riot / riot at the drop of a hat/ cartoon / film. Not how civilized people should act.
 
2012-09-15 04:37:04 PM  

Nabb1: So, you are saying those who defend Allah are animals.


Why would Allah need defending?
 
2012-09-15 04:37:53 PM  

Nabb1: doyner: gameshowhost: But that's a poor analogy, as "bear poking" would have to be a constitutionally-protected right... which is dramatically different from the absence of a law against "bear poking".

/just sayin

No analogy is perfect, and the legality of bear poking is irrelevant. It's a description of moral culpability.

A bear is a wild animal, a predator, that acts on instinct. Humans are supposed to be able to disagree peaceably. I suppose if you want to call Muslims animals who need to be treated as such, that's on you. Personally, I hold them to the same standards as any other human beings.


As a general proposition, I agree. However the USA has a lengthy, documented history of M.E. upheaval, resource plundering, and reckless killing of innocents in the pursuit of the aforementioned. It's ridiculous to cast them in a light where they're supposed to have a never-ending tolerance for being on the butt-end of our faux "liberty" to destroy others' natural and legal rights.
 
2012-09-15 04:40:46 PM  

Nabb1: PopularFront: Nabb1: A bear is a wild animal, a predator, that acts on instinct. Humans are supposed to be able to disagree peaceably.

These aren't humans, they're fundamentalists. I'd hold a bear to a higher standard.

So, you are saying those who defend Allah are animals. And if some jihadist reads this and is outrage and kills an American in retribution, may we hold you responsible for his death?


You're the one putting those words in his mouth so it'd be more appropriate to blame you.
 
2012-09-15 04:41:56 PM  

Botkin of the Yard: Gyrfalcon: Why is it so impossible to acknowledge both? Are you so into free speech you go around telling people "Goddamn, you're fat! Man, kid, you're so butt-ugly you should wear a bag on your head! Lady, if I had boobs like that, I'd have to be followed around by a crane!"

No, of course I don't go around doing things like that. It's not much fun to walk around and hurt people's feelings. However, our society has agreed, for quite some time now, that we are allowed to say things in public that irritate or even offend people.


I am not suggesting this guy be punished for his views, his stupid film, or anything else; but just as you would be at least morally culpable if you left that little kid in tears, so filmmakers are morally culpable for making movies that insult someone's beliefs on purpose with the knowledge that some of those believers are going to overreact. The statement "I'm sorry that you took my statement the wrong way" is not an apology OR an excuse--regardless whether it's a right-wing politician or an anti-religious filmmaker.

The moral culpability for the violence we have seen rests entirely with those who committed violence. Making fun of Islam, even in an incredibly obnoxious and crude way, is not an incitement to violence. It is used by Islamists as an excuse to incite violence. We have the right to be offensive. We do not have the right to bring physical violence to people when they piss us off.


Well, okay....but then by your own logic, any politician, for instance, who says something outrageous and horribly offensive can in fact offer as his apology "I'm sorry you took my statements the wrong way." Isn't that fair? You're saying that the responsibility lies entirely on the person hearing the statement; whether it's some politician claiming there's "legitimate rape" OR a filmmaker exercising his right to blast religion. Both are equally offensive to someone--therefore, in both cases, it's the offended person who needs to get a thicker skin, realize that people can say whatever they want, and just move on with life. Ergo, telling a rape victim "You should have thought of that before you went to the bar!" is neither offensive nor morally wrong, even if she subsequently kills herself. You can just say "Hey, I was just saying what I thought, it's HER FAULT that she took it the wrong way!" My view is, no, it's yours too, because you could have kept your mouth shut, now, couldn't you?

The point I'm trying to make here is if you are aware you're saying something to an audience you know is inclined to overreact, you better do so with the realization your remarks are going to cause that reaction. And if society says "Nope, you're not responsible for anything stemming from your comments--it's all the fault of the other person who misheard you," then we might as well give up on having a decent society.
 
2012-09-15 04:43:01 PM  
This guy did not start any riots or kill anyone. All he (supposedly) did was make a film. Even if the intention was to get all the batshiat theists to do their thing, the blame lies with those who did the violence. Religious people need to grow the fark up and stop being so damn thin-skinned. No, not just muslims.

Maybe we westerners should just fill the internet with mockery of islam and mohammed, and keep it that way until they get used to it. After all, it sorta worked on our christians.

(once discussed my lack of faith with a muslim colleague. it dawned on him that I thought mohammed had made the whole thing up. he obviously disagreed but was not offended)

/no, I haven't seen this film
//not gonna either
 
2012-09-15 04:45:21 PM  

Uncle Tractor: Maybe we westerners should just fill the internet with mockery of islam and mohammed, and keep it that way until they get used to it.


Cunning plan.
 
2012-09-15 04:45:28 PM  

doyner: Nabb1: So, you are saying those who defend Allah are animals.

Why would Allah need defending?


www.millionaireplayboy.com
Indeed.

I say Allah is a faulty god. One of his followers should show his outrage at me by setting fire to a girl scout troop or something.
 
2012-09-15 04:47:17 PM  

Smackledorfer: dr_blasto: Weaver95: Gulper Eel: St_Francis_P: If he violated probation, it might indeed be involuntarily voluntary.

So do you think LA officials and the Feds would be this intensely interested if he had violated probation by uploading a video of his day at the zoo?

of course not. the probation violation is just the pretext.

If he had uploaded videos of his kids at the zoo, no one would have likely been aware. They suspect he uploaded some shiatty movie clips which are related to dumbasses going apeshiat and murdering people. If you're on probation, it is probably best not to call significant attention to yourself.

Of course, he may have not uploaded anything. If so, they'll have to let him go. If they want to, though, it is probably easy to find some silly thing to violate you back into custody while you're on probation. When the cops and DA don't like you, there are no real protections.

It's probation. It is supposed to work that way. You get more freedom than jail, but you aren't a free man yet. In return, the state saves money.


Pretty much. Had this dude nit been a criminal serving out a sentence, well, he likely would be sitting in his house worried some nutter fundamentalist was going to come blow him up. Maybe he's better off, lol.

And, lest we forget, they're only investigating whether did any actions to violate probation. If he didn't, they'll have to let him go.
 
2012-09-15 04:47:50 PM  

orclover: doyner: Nabb1: So, you are saying those who defend Allah are animals.

Why would Allah need defending?

[www.millionaireplayboy.com image 400x250]
Indeed.

I say Allah is a faulty god. One of his followers should show his outrage at me by setting fire to a girl scout troop or something.


The truth, it would seem to me, is that quick-to-anger followers are as insecure as a god that needs worship to feel good about himself.
 
2012-09-15 04:48:02 PM  

jenlen: Mrtraveler01:

That doesn't excuse the savages who are killing people and attacking our embassies though.

I didn't say it did. We're basically on the same page here in realizing that both sides are assholes and both sides did nothing to prevent this.

Yeah, I suppose so.

I've just seen way too many people posting online, laying most of the blame on this film. Yet, I've also seen links where they ask some of the rioters in Libya about the film, and they respond "What film are you speaking of?" o_O

Seems to me any excuse to riot / riot at the drop of a hat/ cartoon / film. Not how civilized people should act.


Oh, yeah, which is why I suggested people are mostly decent outside of a mob.

Reminds me of the WTO riots in Seattle some years back...this douchebag kid was asked by a reporter if he even knew what the WTO conference was about. "I have no f*cking idea. I'm just here for the riot." Some people just like throwing rocks.
 
2012-09-15 04:49:57 PM  

dr_blasto: Smackledorfer: dr_blasto: Weaver95: Gulper Eel: St_Francis_P: If he violated probation, it might indeed be involuntarily voluntary.

So do you think LA officials and the Feds would be this intensely interested if he had violated probation by uploading a video of his day at the zoo?

of course not. the probation violation is just the pretext.

If he had uploaded videos of his kids at the zoo, no one would have likely been aware. They suspect he uploaded some shiatty movie clips which are related to dumbasses going apeshiat and murdering people. If you're on probation, it is probably best not to call significant attention to yourself.

Of course, he may have not uploaded anything. If so, they'll have to let him go. If they want to, though, it is probably easy to find some silly thing to violate you back into custody while you're on probation. When the cops and DA don't like you, there are no real protections.

It's probation. It is supposed to work that way. You get more freedom than jail, but you aren't a free man yet. In return, the state saves money.

Pretty much. Had this dude nit been a criminal serving out a sentence, well, he likely would be sitting in his house worried some nutter fundamentalist was going to come blow him up. Maybe he's better off, lol.

And, lest we forget, they're only investigating whether did any actions to violate probation. If he didn't, they'll have to let him go.


And I'll add that he is going to have to live with his conscience no matter what happens. If he made his crappy video with the intent of embarrassing and insulting muslims but didnt intend for murder, he's going to have to live with that.
 
2012-09-15 04:50:22 PM  

jenlen: Mrtraveler01: jenlen: Hard to believe there are people on Fark actually trying to lay all the blame on this moronic film maker and not the savages who are doing the rioting and killing.

I blame both.

Fair enough?

The asshat has the right to do what he did but any decent human being knows it's not smarts to play with fire. So I think the filmakers are vile human beings as well as the people committing the riots/murders in North Africa.

Fair enough?


Hmmm, no, can't agree there.

Is the film-maker an asshole? Yes, sure, no argument there from me. But he has every right to post/share his so-called "film" if he wants to here, just as that doofus down in Florida has every right to barbecue Korans (or Bibles, or Torahs, or even L Ron Hubbard Scientology books!) all he wants.

That doesn't excuse the savages who are killing people and attacking our embassies though.

I saw the "poking a bear with a stick analogy" here too. That's totally wrong. The bear has no moral responsibility not to kill or maim anyone. It's a freaking bear.

These savages are supposed to be human beings, and should be held to a higher standard: i.e. you can't just go batshiat insane and go slaughtering people if you feel your religion is offended.


The protesters didn't kill. The local branch of al qaeda showed up during a protest to do that.
 
2012-09-15 04:50:36 PM  

Uncle Tractor: Maybe we westerners should just fill the internet with mockery of islam and mohammed, and keep it that way until they get used to it. After all, it sorta worked on our christians.


This would be too effective and permanent. Which is why it will never happen. If we stop being scared of muslims, we might notice how farked up it is around us. Notice how we mostly forgot about the national budget this week?
 
2012-09-15 04:52:36 PM  
I consider myself to be a fairly liberal guy, and I am having a hard time understanding why some proclaimed liberals on this site have a problem with the first amendment. I've also seen people that would normally run over their own mothers to hurl an insult at Xtians jumping to the defense of Muslims that commit murder. I don't get that. Is it because they have nothing to fear from Xtians? Do they see Muslims as an inferior religion to Xtianity? What causes a Fark Liberal (especially Atheist Liberals, which I'm not going to get into here) to side with one religion over another? As a liberal that shouldn't happen, at all. Ever.
 
2012-09-15 04:56:29 PM  

Gulper Eel: St_Francis_P: If he violated probation, it might indeed be involuntarily voluntary.

So do you think LA officials and the Feds would be this intensely interested if he had violated probation by uploading a video of his day at the zoo?


I don't know. You'd have to ask the Feds that question.
 
2012-09-15 04:57:26 PM  

bedtundy: I consider myself to be a fairly liberal guy, and I am having a hard time understanding why some proclaimed liberals on this site have a problem with the first amendment. I've also seen people that would normally run over their own mothers to hurl an insult at Xtians jumping to the defense of Muslims that commit murder. I don't get that. Is it because they have nothing to fear from Xtians? Do they see Muslims as an inferior religion to Xtianity? What causes a Fark Liberal (especially Atheist Liberals, which I'm not going to get into here) to side with one religion over another? As a liberal that shouldn't happen, at all. Ever.


Your concern is noted.

I hate radicals of all religions whether they be Christian or Muslim. That doesn't mean I think one religion is inferior to the other.

Any other strawmen today?
 
2012-09-15 04:58:17 PM  

Nabb1: PopularFront: Nabb1: A bear is a wild animal, a predator, that acts on instinct. Humans are supposed to be able to disagree peaceably.

These aren't humans, they're fundamentalists. I'd hold a bear to a higher standard.

So, you are saying those who defend Allah are animals. And if some jihadist reads this and is outrage and kills an American in retribution, may we hold you responsible for his death?


Technically, I said fundamentalists are lower than animals. You can get an animal to change their beliefs far more easily than a fundamentalist. If jihadists are looking to get butthurt over something there's much better fodder available than anything I've said here.
 
2012-09-15 04:59:16 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: He looks like a real hero.


Not just anyone's hero. The GOP's hero. s
 
2012-09-15 04:59:37 PM  

Uncle Tractor: Maybe we westerners should just fill the internet with mockery of islam and mohammed, and keep it that way until they get used to it. After all, it sorta worked on our christians.


What we really should do is change our foreign policy, first and foremost.
 
2012-09-15 05:01:20 PM  

gameshowhost: Uncle Tractor: Maybe we westerners should just fill the internet with mockery of islam and mohammed, and keep it that way until they get used to it. After all, it sorta worked on our christians.

What we really should do is change our foreign policy, first and foremost.


It may not be a terrible idea to quit wagging our dicks all over the middle east for a change.
 
2012-09-15 05:02:09 PM  

Mrtraveler01: bedtundy: I consider myself to be a fairly liberal guy, and I am having a hard time understanding why some proclaimed liberals on this site have a problem with the first amendment. I've also seen people that would normally run over their own mothers to hurl an insult at Xtians jumping to the defense of Muslims that commit murder. I don't get that. Is it because they have nothing to fear from Xtians? Do they see Muslims as an inferior religion to Xtianity? What causes a Fark Liberal (especially Atheist Liberals, which I'm not going to get into here) to side with one religion over another? As a liberal that shouldn't happen, at all. Ever.

Your concern is noted.

I hate radicals of all religions whether they be Christian or Muslim. That doesn't mean I think one religion is inferior to the other.

Any other strawmen today?


Sorry to have offended thee. Don't go torchin' an embassy over it.

/lighten up, Francis?
 
2012-09-15 05:03:13 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Dancin_In_Anson: Weaver95: because the 1st amendment is for wimps, that's why.

It seems so.

Have fun going to a crowded theater and yelling "FIRE!" and using that as your defense, then.


Heckler's veto isn't the same as creating a clear and PRESENT danger. That clip was released quite some time ago.
 
2012-09-15 05:04:13 PM  

bedtundy: I consider myself to be a fairly liberal guy, and I am having a hard time understanding why some proclaimed liberals on this site have a problem with the first amendment. I've also seen people that would normally run over their own mothers to hurl an insult at Xtians jumping to the defense of Muslims that commit murder. I don't get that. Is it because they have nothing to fear from Xtians? Do they see Muslims as an inferior religion to Xtianity? What causes a Fark Liberal (especially Atheist Liberals, which I'm not going to get into here) to side with one religion over another? As a liberal that shouldn't happen, at all. Ever.


Personally, I don't think it's a first amendment issue, since I don't think he should be punished for the content of the film. But if he violated the terms of his parole to distribute it, he should get the standard slap on the wrist for doing so.

/But I guess the point of this thread was supposed to be how this is bad news . . . for Obama. Or something.
 
2012-09-15 05:05:28 PM  

Gyrfalcon: Botkin of the Yard: Gyrfalcon: Why is it so impossible to acknowledge both? Are you so into free speech you go around telling people "Goddamn, you're fat! Man, kid, you're so butt-ugly you should wear a bag on your head! Lady, if I had boobs like that, I'd have to be followed around by a crane!"

No, of course I don't go around doing things like that. It's not much fun to walk around and hurt people's feelings. However, our society has agreed, for quite some time now, that we are allowed to say things in public that irritate or even offend people.


I am not suggesting this guy be punished for his views, his stupid film, or anything else; but just as you would be at least morally culpable if you left that little kid in tears, so filmmakers are morally culpable for making movies that insult someone's beliefs on purpose with the knowledge that some of those believers are going to overreact. The statement "I'm sorry that you took my statement the wrong way" is not an apology OR an excuse--regardless whether it's a right-wing politician or an anti-religious filmmaker.

The moral culpability for the violence we have seen rests entirely with those who committed violence. Making fun of Islam, even in an incredibly obnoxious and crude way, is not an incitement to violence. It is used by Islamists as an excuse to incite violence. We have the right to be offensive. We do not have the right to bring physical violence to people when they piss us off.

Well, okay....but then by your own logic, any politician, for instance, who says something outrageous and horribly offensive can in fact offer as his apology "I'm sorry you took my statements the wrong way." Isn't that fair? You're saying that the responsibility lies entirely on the person hearing the statement; whether it's some politician claiming there's "legitimate rape" OR a filmmaker exercising his right to blast religion. Both are equally offensive to someone--therefore, in both cases, it's the offended person who needs to get a thicker skin, realize that people can say whatever they want, and just move on with life. Ergo, telling a rape victim "You should have thought of that before you went to the bar!" is neither offensive nor morally wrong, even if she subsequently kills herself. You can just say "Hey, I was just saying what I thought, it's HER FAULT that she took it the wrong way!" My view is, no, it's yours too, because you could have kept your mouth shut, now, couldn't you?

The point I'm trying to make here is if you are aware you're saying something to an audience you know is inclined to overreact, you better do so with the realization your remarks are going to cause that reaction. And if society says "Nope, you're not responsible for anything stemming from your comments--it's all the fault of the other person who misheard you," then we might as well give up on having a decent society.


Politicians, and others, often use exactly that sort of lame non-apology.

Your rape victim example is the sort of speech I would consider morally objectionable and offensive. It's not criminal though. Killing people because you're mad about a book, cartoon, or movie is criminal behavior.

Salman Rushdie knew The Satanic Verses would offend some. He certainly did not expect what happened but, either way, we have not held him responsible for the murder and violence that happened after the book was published. Our society does not appear to have been judged a lost cause since then.
 
2012-09-15 05:07:01 PM  

doyner: Nabb1: So, you are saying those who defend Allah are animals.

Why would Allah need defending?


Ask those nutcases who are trashing our embassies.
 
2012-09-15 05:08:24 PM  

Biological Ali: Nabb1: PopularFront: Nabb1: A bear is a wild animal, a predator, that acts on instinct. Humans are supposed to be able to disagree peaceably.

These aren't humans, they're fundamentalists. I'd hold a bear to a higher standard.

So, you are saying those who defend Allah are animals. And if some jihadist reads this and is outrage and kills an American in retribution, may we hold you responsible for his death?

You're the one putting those words in his mouth so it'd be more appropriate to blame you.


That's what those savages believe they are doing. He said they are animals.
 
2012-09-15 05:08:39 PM  

dr_blasto: gameshowhost: Uncle Tractor: Maybe we westerners should just fill the internet with mockery of islam and mohammed, and keep it that way until they get used to it. After all, it sorta worked on our christians.

What we really should do is change our foreign policy, first and foremost.

It may not be a terrible idea to quit wagging our dicks all over the middle east for a change.


Honestly, we (the US) aren't the problem here. the Time article linked upthread notes that much of this current crisis is being caused by our good buddies the Saudis (always, always follow the money, folks.

As far as our Mideast policy in general, like it or not we're stuck there, and we'll always be stuck there so long as we're married to oil and Israel.
 
2012-09-15 05:09:12 PM  

Nabb1: Biological Ali: Nabb1: PopularFront: Nabb1: A bear is a wild animal, a predator, that acts on instinct. Humans are supposed to be able to disagree peaceably.

These aren't humans, they're fundamentalists. I'd hold a bear to a higher standard.

So, you are saying those who defend Allah are animals. And if some jihadist reads this and is outrage and kills an American in retribution, may we hold you responsible for his death?

You're the one putting those words in his mouth so it'd be more appropriate to blame you.

That's what those savages believe they are doing. He said they are animals.


And, for clarification: I do not believe all Muslims are savages. Just the ones engaging in all this violence.
 
2012-09-15 05:10:44 PM  

HighOnCraic: bedtundy: I consider myself to be a fairly liberal guy, and I am having a hard time understanding why some proclaimed liberals on this site have a problem with the first amendment. I've also seen people that would normally run over their own mothers to hurl an insult at Xtians jumping to the defense of Muslims that commit murder. I don't get that. Is it because they have nothing to fear from Xtians? Do they see Muslims as an inferior religion to Xtianity? What causes a Fark Liberal (especially Atheist Liberals, which I'm not going to get into here) to side with one religion over another? As a liberal that shouldn't happen, at all. Ever.

Personally, I don't think it's a first amendment issue, since I don't think he should be punished for the content of the film. But if he violated the terms of his parole to distribute it, he should get the standard slap on the wrist for doing so.

/But I guess the point of this thread was supposed to be how this is bad news . . . for Obama. Or something.


I don't know. I, like Weaver, would like to know the extent of his violations. It just seems rather bizarre to go after him now if he were already violating them in the first place. The timing just seems... weird to me. But if he's guilty of that then he'll face the penalty for it I guess.

/everything is bad news for fartbongo, or so it seems. Will still vote for him though.
 
2012-09-15 05:10:47 PM  
Look, I don't care whether what he did gets the blame or not for a bunch of crazy people going out and murdering. That doesn't matter to me. If he's arrested for violating his probation/parole, then guess what? He deserves it. Not because of any of the content, but because he violated the terms of his probation/parole.

If you've ever been on probation or parole, you know you do everything possible to avoid attracting attention to yourself. I was on probation for a year; that year, I didn't have a speeding ticket, littering citation or even a parking ticket. Because the moment you stick out in the slightest, is the moment you'll probably spend a weekend in jail.

Think of it this way: Imagine the guy was, instead of uploading stupid videos on the internet that look worse than ICP's "Big Money Rustla's", driving on the interstate alone in his car. When his probation says "You cannot drive a car unsupervised. Some drunken dick-chute crosses the median and plows into another car and he swerves out of the way, hitting a guardrail. When the cop shows up to do his report, he will most likely check (either by running licenses or asking the question) on the parole/probation status of those involved who do not yet need medical attention.

The officer notices that our guy was not supposed to be driving unsupervised. At this point, he pretty much has to bring the guy in. Even if you don't believe he had anything to do with the huge accident that killed people, and even if you think everyone should be allowed to drive unsupervised... he broke the agreement he made, which he had to follow if he didn't wanna be in jail/prison. Fault is irrelevant; what matters is he broke the rules, and something happened that made him visible to police. This is also why parolees and probationers are explicitly warned to avoid purposeless vehicular travel even within the area they're allowed to move freely-- any random thing can happen to make you visible to police, when your presence extends outside the private realm.
 
2012-09-15 05:10:51 PM  
I absolutely protect this asshole's right to be inflammatory. That right must be protected at all costs.

We need to be honesst here. I say this as someone with Muslim neighbors, coworkers, and friends, who understands that the insane bullshiat in the Middle East doesn't represent all Muslims. The religion being fostered in the mid-east is every bit as sick and bastardized as the anti-science, anti-women religion being fostered in the south. It is more directly dangerous, because it actively and clearly leads to people being hurt and killed. Islamists in the Middle East need to have a major adjustment of attitude and thought before we can have any hope for peace there. They are poor, easily riled up, and farking insane zealots.

That said, there is nothing we can do to stop them from being that way. We can act in many ways to ensure our own safety, but there is no. farking. Way. To "fix" them. They will not be converted. They will not be bombed into compliance, and entertaining thoughts of such makes us demonstrably worse than them in terms of sheer number of casualties. We cannot save the region from itself. Obama can't do it. Romney can't do it.

Unfortunately, films like this do not help the process. They must still be legal and able to be made, but we can't deny that they're asshole things to do.

When you're in a very dry forest and there's a hornet's nest above a tree, what is the right course of action? You walk around the trees nearby. You can't hit the hornet's nest with a stick, because you'll be stung. You can't burn the hornet's nest, because doing so will cause the entire forest to catch fire. Your only reasonable course of action is to leave it alone. Getting pissed off at hornets is no way to fix the problem. If those hornets start stinging you near your home, go nuts with the spray and make sure they can't touch you. In the dry forest, though, you can't stop them from doing what they do.

/The hornets aren't all Muslims, just the crazy ones in the Middle East who do this shiat.
 
2012-09-15 05:12:13 PM  

ZAZ: If this guy sparked the riots, I'll look the other way while Obama has him rendered to custody of some Islamic activist group overseas.


Yeah, fark you. He has freedom of speech here.
 
2012-09-15 05:12:35 PM  
The guy has the right to make the film, no matter how provocative.

The protesters also have the right to protest the film, en masse, and call for the makers of the film to be beheaded, request a change in laws to make films of this type illegal, and request that their government force the U.S. out of their country as long as they do not run afoul of any trespassing laws or cause property damage. And, as far as any evidence suggests, the majority of protesters are doing just that.

Bottom-line, if you truly support free speech, freedom of assembly, and freedom to request government redress, you will make sure that our government does not violate the rights of the film-maker to make films, and do your utmost to ensure that the government of the protesters do not act in ways to prevent the non-violent protestors to be heard as well, even when they ask for things that are unreasonable, repulsive or ridiculous.
 
2012-09-15 05:13:30 PM  

Nabb1: That's what those savages believe they are doing. He said they are animals.


Yeah, and you're the one inserting vague and/or overly broad statements like "Muslims" and "those who defend Allah" into the dialogue. If you have a point to make here, you're not doing it particularly well.
 
2012-09-15 05:19:34 PM  

ZAZ: If this guy sparked the riots, I'll look the other way while Obama has him rendered to custody of some Islamic activist group overseas.


Normally, I am one that would rather not see the cry-baby Muslims get their way when someone makes fun of their pweshush prophet... But having SEEN the video I am sympathetic. It's a crime against film-making is what it is. There is no artistic merit to it whatsoever.

I can abide seeing some jokes against religions if it's funny or has a point, this piece of shiat movie had neither. It was simply made to offend.
 
2012-09-15 05:20:15 PM  
Looks like there's some question of whether on not this is the right guy; but if it is, I'm ok with a reckless endangerment charge. Nothing more, nothing less.
 
2012-09-15 05:20:55 PM  

Bloody William: The religion being fostered in the mid-east is every bit as sick and bastardized as the anti-science, anti-women religion being fostered in the south.


This is where you lost me. Kansas, anyone? Indiana? Central Pennsylvania? Idaho?

Please make your point without dickish regionalism.
 
Displayed 50 of 409 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report