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.

(CBS San Francisco)   Apparently. using the exact quotes and text that Islamics use is Islamophobic bigotry. Please make a note of it   (sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com) divider line 97
    More: Obvious, Islamophobia, Islamism, San Francisco, SF Muni, Pamela Geller, advertising campaigns, bigotry, worship  
•       •       •

7653 clicks; posted to Main » on 13 Mar 2013 at 8:15 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-13 10:56:56 AM  

Voiceofreason01: give me doughnuts:
step 1: Use picture and quote of prominent Muslim in ad
step 2: Do nothing else
step 3: Get accused of "islamophobia"

first: The photo of one of the ads in the article shows Osama Bin Laden. Calling Bin Laden a "prominant Muslim" is like calling Ralph Rene a "prominant scientist". Also the American Freedom Defense Initiative is explicitly anti-Muslim.


He was Muslim, and he was prominent. So what if you didn't like him.
Is there anything in the ad that say "All Muslims are evil/bad/da debil!"?

It's in response to CAIR's "My Jihad" ads that call going to the gym, or getting the kids to school on time "jihad" activities. All these ads do is point out that to some Muslims "jihad activities" involve guns, bombs, and planes flying into buildings.
 
2013-03-13 11:08:13 AM  
*sigh*
rlv.zcache.com
Perhaps one day these religious people can put down their fear and ignorance and join us in the 21st century.  Sadly, that day will probably be in the 41st century.
 
2013-03-13 11:30:54 AM  

Farce-Side: Do you know the way to Mordor: "...
 Deuteronomy 28:53
 2 Samuel 12:31
 2 Kings 23-24
 Isaiah 13:16
 Ezekiel 5:10

///Which is more violent, the Bible or the Koran?

Definitely the Jewish old testament, or Torah, you anti-semite.


Actually, of those, only Deuteronomy is Torah.  The rest of the Old Testament are history books, books of poetry, etc.

But then, you'd know that, if you weren't an Anti-Semitic.
 
2013-03-13 11:41:55 AM  
Oh hey, Pam Geller sighting! I haven't seen her since the Southern Poverty Law Center labeled her a bigoted anti-Islamist for saying stuff like Obama is the love child of Malcolm X, denying the existence of Serbian concentration camps, supporting racists and fascists in Europe and South Africa, and stopping the Park51 Islamic center.

And for more good times, do some digging on her car dealerships where she was helping drug lords launder money and one of the salesmen ended up shot
 
2013-03-13 11:46:30 AM  

wickedragon: Zeno-25: I've had Muslims tell me with a straight face that unless you can speak Arabic, you can't really understand the Koran. Because God only speaks Arabic or something, and it just can't be translated properly unlike all the world's other major holy texts over the millenia. So learn Arabic if you want to discuss the Koran, infidel.

Pretty convenient.

It's a half-truth from some half-assed muslims.
To properly interpret the Koran you should read it as Muhammed wrote it. Unfortunately the idioms and semantic/pragmatic wordplays are as lost on modern arab readers as they would be on english readers so the whole point sort of just...dies. Also what institutes a "proper interpretation" is sort of fuzzy. And also, this in no way means that you can't argue against a muslim touting his views in a debate. You can properly interpret his words as he says them. ;)



Or you can take the more rational position that, subjective half-truth or not, the whole thing, like all other religions, is bullshiat.
 
2013-03-13 12:48:56 PM  
jihad=the struggle

AND IT TOOK TILL NOW FOR ME TO PUT

mein kamph=my struggle

who copied who?
 
2013-03-13 12:52:07 PM  

ReverendLoki: Farce-Side: Do you know the way to Mordor: "...
 Deuteronomy 28:53
 2 Samuel 12:31
 2 Kings 23-24
 Isaiah 13:16
 Ezekiel 5:10

///Which is more violent, the Bible or the Koran?

Definitely the Jewish old testament, or Torah, you anti-semite.

Actually, of those, only Deuteronomy is Torah.  The rest of the Old Testament are history books, books of poetry, etc.

But then, you'd know that, if you weren't an Anti-Semitic.


I was just calling you out for leaving the Torah out of your choices.  Of course you'd realize that if you weren't bigotted against Jews (no good synonyms for antisemitic...).
 
2013-03-13 01:01:40 PM  

Tricky Chicken: Do you know the way to Mordor: "... thou shalt eat the fruit of thine own body, the flesh of thy sons and of thy daughters." Deuteronomy 28:53

"And he brought forth the people that were therein, and put them under saws, and under harrows of iron, and under axes of iron, and made them pass through the brick-kiln." 2 Samuel 12:31

 As he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head. And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them." 2 Kings 23-24

"...children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished." Isaiah 13:16

" The fathers shall eat the sons in the midst of thee, and the sons shall eat their fathers."  Ezekiel 5:10

///Which is more violent, the Bible or the Koran?

I'm prety sure Game or Thrones is more violent than either.  But how does this relate to a discussion of the Koran or Islam?

Or was that just a meaningless misdirection?  I'm guessing misdirection.


Hypocrisy was his point, and that was pretty obvious. You can't be a Christian or a religious Jew and accuse Muslims of having a violent book while pretending that yours isn't vile as well.
 
2013-03-13 01:10:35 PM  

Farce-Side: ReverendLoki: Farce-Side: Do you know the way to Mordor: "...
 Deuteronomy 28:53
 2 Samuel 12:31
 2 Kings 23-24
 Isaiah 13:16
 Ezekiel 5:10

///Which is more violent, the Bible or the Koran?

Definitely the Jewish old testament, or Torah, you anti-semite.

Actually, of those, only Deuteronomy is Torah.  The rest of the Old Testament are history books, books of poetry, etc.

But then, you'd know that, if you weren't an Anti-Semitic.

I was just calling you out for leaving the Torah out of your choices.  Of course you'd realize that if you weren't bigotted against Jews (no good synonyms for antisemitic...).


I didn't leave it out.  I wasn't a part of the conversation before; I just decided to stick my big nose into your thread.

/Bet the "big nose" comment made you think contra-Semitanical thoughts....
 
2013-03-13 01:26:27 PM  
Taking an extremist and using their quotes to generalize millions of people negatively is, in fact, bigotry. The ad campaign is idiotic and hateful and people should have the shiat slapped out of them for acting like that.
 
2013-03-13 01:31:34 PM  

sauce_jenkins: So if I plastered public buses with all of the hate speech some white idiots tweeted after Obama won reelection, then that is just representing the general white populace, just like these ads represent all Muslims, right subs?


What's the difference between hate speech and free speech?
 
2013-03-13 01:41:47 PM  
"Islamics"?
 
2013-03-13 01:48:04 PM  

BgJonson79: sauce_jenkins: So if I plastered public buses with all of the hate speech some white idiots tweeted after Obama won reelection, then that is just representing the general white populace, just like these ads represent all Muslims, right subs?

What's the difference between hate speech and free speech?


If you really need me to answer that, free speech encompasses all speech, hate or otherwise, so long as said speech does not infringe the actual rights or safety of another person(s). While most of what we could call hate speech is protected as free speech, free speech is NOT a license to think you can say whatever you want with no consequences. One of the things about living in a society such as ours is that many people have different opinions, and they have the right to them, but others may differ in their views and share an equal right to express their opposition.
 
2013-03-13 02:03:24 PM  

Wayne 985: Tricky Chicken: Hypocrisy was his point, and that was pretty obvious. You can't be a Christian or a religious Jew and accuse Muslims of having a violent book while pretending that yours isn't vile as well.


But what the hell does it matter.  If my house is on fire and you tell me so, I should try to put it out not point out that I see smoke coming from yours.  If you agree that the Koran is misguided and violent, then reject it. If you also think that the Bible is misguided and violent then reject it too.  If you .....Torah.... and so on.

If they are just pointing out what is wrong with the Koran, then address it.  If they are saying the Koran is misguided and violent so you should follow the Bible, then you should point out how they are equally violent.
 
2013-03-13 02:04:17 PM  

sauce_jenkins: BgJonson79: sauce_jenkins: So if I plastered public buses with all of the hate speech some white idiots tweeted after Obama won reelection, then that is just representing the general white populace, just like these ads represent all Muslims, right subs?

What's the difference between hate speech and free speech?

If you really need me to answer that, free speech encompasses all speech, hate or otherwise, so long as said speech does not infringe the actual rights or safety of another person(s). While most of what we could call hate speech is protected as free speech, free speech is NOT a license to think you can say whatever you want with no consequences. One of the things about living in a society such as ours is that many people have different opinions, and they have the right to them, but others may differ in their views and share an equal right to express their opposition.


How can saying words possibly infringe on others' rights or safety?  Unless they're being spoken at 135 dBs?
 
2013-03-13 02:12:39 PM  

WTP 2: jihad=the struggle

AND IT TOOK TILL NOW FOR ME TO PUT

mein kamph=my struggle

who copied who?


Actually if you review the history of Germany during WWI & WWII you'll see that Germany was the country that got the Islamists all Jihadist.
 
2013-03-13 02:31:07 PM  

Tricky Chicken: Wayne 985: Tricky Chicken: Hypocrisy was his point, and that was pretty obvious. You can't be a Christian or a religious Jew and accuse Muslims of having a violent book while pretending that yours isn't vile as well.

But what the hell does it matter.  If my house is on fire and you tell me so, I should try to put it out not point out that I see smoke coming from yours.  If you agree that the Koran is misguided and violent, then reject it. If you also think that the Bible is misguided and violent then reject it too.  If you .....Torah.... and so on.

If they are just pointing out what is wrong with the Koran, then address it.  If they are saying the Koran is misguided and violent so you should follow the Bible, then you should point out how they are equally violent.


That's what people like Pamella Geller claim, and that's why the Bible was criticized.
 
2013-03-13 02:33:50 PM  

BgJonson79: How can saying words possibly infringe on others' rights or safety? Unless they're being spoken at 135 dBs?


Ever heard of falsely yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater? That could certainly lead to people getting hurt, using nothing other than spoken words... There are other cases, as well... (Inciting a riot, etc...)
 
2013-03-13 02:38:05 PM  

RobSeace: BgJonson79: How can saying words possibly infringe on others' rights or safety? Unless they're being spoken at 135 dBs?

Ever heard of falsely yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater? That could certainly lead to people getting hurt, using nothing other than spoken words... There are other cases, as well... (Inciting a riot, etc...)


Yell fire does nothing but generate sound waves in the air.  People trampling others, those ACTIONS, are what cause problems.  So again I ask, what WORDS and not ACTIONS infringe on others' rights or safety?
 
2013-03-13 02:39:10 PM  

Nutsac_Jim: sauce_jenkins: So if I plastered public buses with all of the hate speech some white idiots tweeted after Obama won reelection, then that is just representing the general white populace, just like these ads represent all Muslims, right subs?

Its a little different because if you ask a general member of society about the obama quotes, the typical response is, 'that's some inbred redneck'.   If you question arabs partying in the street on 911, the response is, they are, of course, justified, stop doing what they dont like.


Isn't only asking "arabs partying on the street" equivalent to only asking "inbred rednecks" rather than "a general member of society"? Unless your contention is that the overwhelming majority of muslims were partying in the street on 9/11? In which case, I'd ask for a citation... (And, no a picture of a few hundred people partying doesn't cut it, given the number of muslims in the world...)

/Defending any religious group makes me feel dirty...
//But, come on, really...
 
2013-03-13 02:42:51 PM  

BgJonson79: RobSeace: BgJonson79: How can saying words possibly infringe on others' rights or safety? Unless they're being spoken at 135 dBs?

Ever heard of falsely yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater? That could certainly lead to people getting hurt, using nothing other than spoken words... There are other cases, as well... (Inciting a riot, etc...)

Yell fire does nothing but generate sound waves in the air.  People trampling others, those ACTIONS, are what cause problems.  So again I ask, what WORDS and not ACTIONS infringe on others' rights or safety?


Are you intentionally being obtuse here? The only reason people trampled anyone is because someone falsely claimed there was a fire, which put them in fear for their lives, and led them to recklessly rush for the exits, only caring about making it out alive... Whether you believe the "Fire!" shouter was in fact responsible or not is irrelevent to anyone outside of your own head, because the courts have determined that they indeed are responsible and should not in fact be allowed to do that...
 
2013-03-13 02:47:52 PM  

RobSeace: BgJonson79: RobSeace: BgJonson79: How can saying words possibly infringe on others' rights or safety? Unless they're being spoken at 135 dBs?

Ever heard of falsely yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater? That could certainly lead to people getting hurt, using nothing other than spoken words... There are other cases, as well... (Inciting a riot, etc...)

Yell fire does nothing but generate sound waves in the air.  People trampling others, those ACTIONS, are what cause problems.  So again I ask, what WORDS and not ACTIONS infringe on others' rights or safety?

Are you intentionally being obtuse here? The only reason people trampled anyone is because someone falsely claimed there was a fire, which put them in fear for their lives, and led them to recklessly rush for the exits, only caring about making it out alive... Whether you believe the "Fire!" shouter was in fact responsible or not is irrelevent to anyone outside of your own head, because the courts have determined that they indeed are responsible and should not in fact be allowed to do that...


The courts used to say the world was flat.  Doesn't make them right.

Also, if people only listened to the words of "Fire!" and did not act, then nobody would get trampled.  So the words didn't cause an issue, the actions did.  You can paint it any way you want, but 65 dB (human voice level) sound vibrations in the air don't cause problems.  Reacting to said vibrations does.  Why don't we punish the people reacting?
 
2013-03-13 02:54:44 PM  

BgJonson79: The courts used to say the world was flat.


What courts, when?

Also, if people only listened to the words of "Fire!" and did not act, then nobody would get trampled.

And, if only language didn't mean anything and wasn't intended to communicate things to others... If only it were merely meaningless noises being grunted out by us overevolved apes... Then, you'd have a valid point!
 
2013-03-13 02:58:08 PM  

RobSeace: BgJonson79: The courts used to say the world was flat.

What courts, when?

Also, if people only listened to the words of "Fire!" and did not act, then nobody would get trampled.

And, if only language didn't mean anything and wasn't intended to communicate things to others... If only it were merely meaningless noises being grunted out by us overevolved apes... Then, you'd have a valid point!


But I'm not a mindless ape, so I have control of what I do with the knowledge that the sound gives me.  You still haven't proven a point where the sound itself causes an issue.  An audiologist or a physicist might be able to help you ;-)
 
2013-03-13 03:19:49 PM  

BgJonson79: You still haven't proven a point where the sound itself causes an issue.


Because that was never my point... It's not the sound it's the information conveyed by the words being transmitted via that sound... If your only point was that the mere sound of speaking can cause no harm, then fine, you're probably right... (With perhaps the exception of opera singers whose voice can shatter glass, and then those shards may fall on you and cut you, or something...) But, that's a pretty obtuse point... Because, when people talk of "speaking", they're not just talking of making noises; they're talking about communicating information... And, if you communicate false information deliberately intended to cause others to panic, and they in fact do predictably panic because they believed you were being truthful, and they get hurt in that resulting panic, then you are indeed culpable, both legally and morally... To place the blame on the victims instead is just crazy... You're essentially trying to argue it's their own fault for believing the liar who yelled "Fire!"... Do you also blame the victims of con-men for falling for it? Do you blame children who get lured into vans with candy and then kidnapped? Do you blame a robbery not on the guy who falsely claims he has a gun, but on the person who beleived it and so handed over the money? If we didn't believe one another most of the time, the entire society would fall apart!
 
2013-03-13 03:32:20 PM  

BgJonson79: RobSeace: BgJonson79: RobSeace: BgJonson79: How can saying words possibly infringe on others' rights or safety? Unless they're being spoken at 135 dBs?

Ever heard of falsely yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater? That could certainly lead to people getting hurt, using nothing other than spoken words... There are other cases, as well... (Inciting a riot, etc...)

Yell fire does nothing but generate sound waves in the air.  People trampling others, those ACTIONS, are what cause problems.  So again I ask, what WORDS and not ACTIONS infringe on others' rights or safety?

Are you intentionally being obtuse here? The only reason people trampled anyone is because someone falsely claimed there was a fire, which put them in fear for their lives, and led them to recklessly rush for the exits, only caring about making it out alive... Whether you believe the "Fire!" shouter was in fact responsible or not is irrelevent to anyone outside of your own head, because the courts have determined that they indeed are responsible and should not in fact be allowed to do that...

The courts used to say the world was flat.  Doesn't make them right.

Also, if people only listened to the words of "Fire!" and did not act, then nobody would get trampled.  So the words didn't cause an issue, the actions did.  You can paint it any way you want, but 65 dB (human voice level) sound vibrations in the air don't cause problems.  Reacting to said vibrations does.  Why don't we punish the people reacting?


trenchreynolds.me
 
2013-03-13 03:36:39 PM  

ferretman: BgJonson79: RobSeace: BgJonson79: RobSeace: BgJonson79: How can saying words possibly infringe on others' rights or safety? Unless they're being spoken at 135 dBs?

Ever heard of falsely yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater? That could certainly lead to people getting hurt, using nothing other than spoken words... There are other cases, as well... (Inciting a riot, etc...)

Yell fire does nothing but generate sound waves in the air.  People trampling others, those ACTIONS, are what cause problems.  So again I ask, what WORDS and not ACTIONS infringe on others' rights or safety?

Are you intentionally being obtuse here? The only reason people trampled anyone is because someone falsely claimed there was a fire, which put them in fear for their lives, and led them to recklessly rush for the exits, only caring about making it out alive... Whether you believe the "Fire!" shouter was in fact responsible or not is irrelevent to anyone outside of your own head, because the courts have determined that they indeed are responsible and should not in fact be allowed to do that...

The courts used to say the world was flat.  Doesn't make them right.

Also, if people only listened to the words of "Fire!" and did not act, then nobody would get trampled.  So the words didn't cause an issue, the actions did.  You can paint it any way you want, but 65 dB (human voice level) sound vibrations in the air don't cause problems.  Reacting to said vibrations does.  Why don't we punish the people reacting?


What wasn't technically correct with what I said?
 
2013-03-13 03:44:35 PM  

Farce-Side: Do you know the way to Mordor: "... thou shalt eat the fruit of thine own body, the flesh of thy sons and of thy daughters." Deuteronomy 28:53

"And he brought forth the people that were therein, and put them under saws, and under harrows of iron, and under axes of iron, and made them pass through the brick-kiln." 2 Samuel 12:31

 As he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head. And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them." 2 Kings 23-24

"...children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished." Isaiah 13:16

" The fathers shall eat the sons in the midst of thee, and the sons shall eat their fathers."  Ezekiel 5:10

///Which is more violent, the Bible or the Koran?

Definitely the Jewish old testament, or Torah, you anti-semite.


I'm not an anti-semite- some of my friends are Arabs!
 
2013-03-13 03:54:12 PM  
Let's settle the arguments thrown back at me once and for all! (hopefully)

Most Christians practice a live and let live philosophy. They follow the kinder and gentler aspect of the Bible. However, those who follow the right wing evangelical creed have some very large ideological blinkers on when it comes to Muslims.

These right wingers believe that they, and everyone else who professes to be a Christian, should slavishly follow everything that the Bible says down to the tiniest detail. Why is it surprising that these people believe that every Muslim ALSO follow every part of the Koran, even the most violent parts? They are merely seeing in the Muslims what they see in themselves.

While this is happening, there are a lot of moderate Christians and Muslims who do not follow every part of their religion slavishly and can see past what the radicals can see. The right wing Christians and radical Muslims refuse to even acknowledge that these people exist on either side.

To those who deny the existence of moderate Muslims, I can say that I work with one, and she doesn't wear a full length burka or even a veil, she believes strongly in women's rights, and we are able to have some very stimulating conversations about politics and religion without offence given or taken even though I am not a Muslim or even particularly religious myself.
 
2013-03-13 03:59:13 PM  

wickedragon: To properly interpret the Koran you should read it as Muhammed wrote it

.

If I remember my schooling correctly, Muhammed didn't write the Qur'an, others did. He spoke and others wrote it down.
 
2013-03-13 04:02:24 PM  

Do you know the way to Mordor: "... thou shalt eat the fruit of thine own body, the flesh of thy sons and of thy daughters." Deuteronomy 28:53

"And he brought forth the people that were therein, and put them under saws, and under harrows of iron, and under axes of iron, and made them pass through the brick-kiln." 2 Samuel 12:31

 As he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head. And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them." 2 Kings 23-24

"...children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished." Isaiah 13:16

" The fathers shall eat the sons in the midst of thee, and the sons shall eat their fathers."  Ezekiel 5:10

///Which is more violent, the Bible or the Koran?


Way to cherry pick your passages, troll. Way too obvious.
0/10
 
2013-03-13 04:03:37 PM  

VendorXeno: Taking an extremist and using their quotes to generalize millions of people negatively is, in fact, bigotry. The ad campaign is idiotic and hateful and people should have the shiat slapped out of them for acting like that.


Is it generalizing to Muslims, though?  I take it as critical of jihad.
 
2013-03-13 04:19:46 PM  

BgJonson79: ferretman: BgJonson79: RobSeace: BgJonson79: RobSeace: BgJonson79: How can saying words possibly infringe on others' rights or safety? Unless they're being spoken at 135 dBs?

Ever heard of falsely yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater? That could certainly lead to people getting hurt, using nothing other than spoken words... There are other cases, as well... (Inciting a riot, etc...)

Yell fire does nothing but generate sound waves in the air.  People trampling others, those ACTIONS, are what cause problems.  So again I ask, what WORDS and not ACTIONS infringe on others' rights or safety?

Are you intentionally being obtuse here? The only reason people trampled anyone is because someone falsely claimed there was a fire, which put them in fear for their lives, and led them to recklessly rush for the exits, only caring about making it out alive... Whether you believe the "Fire!" shouter was in fact responsible or not is irrelevent to anyone outside of your own head, because the courts have determined that they indeed are responsible and should not in fact be allowed to do that...

The courts used to say the world was flat.  Doesn't make them right.

Also, if people only listened to the words of "Fire!" and did not act, then nobody would get trampled.  So the words didn't cause an issue, the actions did.  You can paint it any way you want, but 65 dB (human voice level) sound vibrations in the air don't cause problems.  Reacting to said vibrations does.  Why don't we punish the people reacting?

What wasn't technically correct with what I said?


All of it?

According to you, sound cannot be of any harm. How is it the case that then, spying/provide terrorist information is not just sound (given you tell the information to someone?) So, if I plant a microphone in your mom's bedroom and then broadcast the sound of you two, that should be OK?
 
2013-03-13 04:25:15 PM  
Planting the mic is an illegal action.
 
2013-03-13 04:56:26 PM  

mayIFark: BgJonson79: ferretman: BgJonson79: RobSeace: BgJonson79: RobSeace: BgJonson79: How can saying words possibly infringe on others' rights or safety? Unless they're being spoken at 135 dBs?

Ever heard of falsely yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater? That could certainly lead to people getting hurt, using nothing other than spoken words... There are other cases, as well... (Inciting a riot, etc...)

Yell fire does nothing but generate sound waves in the air.  People trampling others, those ACTIONS, are what cause problems.  So again I ask, what WORDS and not ACTIONS infringe on others' rights or safety?

Are you intentionally being obtuse here? The only reason people trampled anyone is because someone falsely claimed there was a fire, which put them in fear for their lives, and led them to recklessly rush for the exits, only caring about making it out alive... Whether you believe the "Fire!" shouter was in fact responsible or not is irrelevent to anyone outside of your own head, because the courts have determined that they indeed are responsible and should not in fact be allowed to do that...

The courts used to say the world was flat.  Doesn't make them right.

Also, if people only listened to the words of "Fire!" and did not act, then nobody would get trampled.  So the words didn't cause an issue, the actions did.  You can paint it any way you want, but 65 dB (human voice level) sound vibrations in the air don't cause problems.  Reacting to said vibrations does.  Why don't we punish the people reacting?

What wasn't technically correct with what I said?

All of it?

According to you, sound cannot be of any harm. How is it the case that then, spying/provide terrorist information is not just sound (given you tell the information to someone?) So, if I plant a microphone in your mom's bedroom and then broadcast the sound of you two, that should be OK?


Planting the mic would be an action, not sound.  Also, please rate my troll fu :-D
 
2013-03-13 05:25:38 PM  

Do you know the way to Mordor: "... thou shalt eat the fruit of thine own body, the flesh of thy sons and of thy daughters." Deuteronomy 28:53

"And he brought forth the people that were therein, and put them under saws, and under harrows of iron, and under axes of iron, and made them pass through the brick-kiln." 2 Samuel 12:31

 As he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head. And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them." 2 Kings 23-24

"...children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished." Isaiah 13:16

" The fathers shall eat the sons in the midst of thee, and the sons shall eat their fathers."  Ezekiel 5:10

///Which is more violent, the Bible or the Koran?


Nice out of context quotes.
 
2013-03-13 05:46:11 PM  
BgJonson79:  "...The courts used to say the world was flat.  Doesn't make them right."


Which courts said that?  I believe it was more the scientists, and they figured out that whole issue about 500 years ago.
 
2013-03-13 06:15:54 PM  

andychrist420: BgJonson79:  "...The courts used to say the world was flat.  Doesn't make them right."


Which courts said that?  I believe it was more the scientists, and they figured out that whole issue about 500 years ago.


That's what I asked, and never received an answer... But, he's already admitted to just trolling now, anyway...

However, it was a whole lot longer ago than 500 years ago that the scientists figured that out: The paradigm of a spherical Earth was developed in Greek astronomy, beginning with Pythagoras (6th century BC), although most Pre-Socratics retained the flat Earth model. Aristotle accepted the spherical shape of the Earth on empirical grounds around 330 BC, and knowledge of the spherical Earth gradually began to spread beyond the Hellenistic world from then on.
 
2013-03-13 07:23:10 PM  

GORDON: For years now, it has been racist hate speech to use exact quotes against a democrat.


FTFM, as it applies to all and not just racial issues.
 
2013-03-13 07:30:48 PM  

Cowkitchen2: Bartle J.: blackflag415: what the hell is an "Islamic?"

Give subby a break - he was probably itching to say A-rab.

No, no, no.  Nobody says "A-rab" anymore, do they?  It's towel-head or rag-head, I think.


Dune-coon is the preferred nomenclature around these parts.
 
2013-03-13 09:58:39 PM  

Zeno-25: I've had Muslims tell me with a straight face that unless you can speak Arabic, you can't really understand the Koran. Because God only speaks Arabic or something, and it just can't be translated properly unlike all the world's other major holy texts over the millenia. So learn Arabic if you want to discuss the Koran, infidel.

Pretty convenient.


Considering how much of a horrible mistranslation the King James version of the Christian bible is, they might have a point.
 
2013-03-13 10:04:25 PM  

BuckTurgidson: "Islamics"?


Somebody who takes a non-stop flight into a building.
 
2013-03-13 10:04:32 PM  

blackflag415: what the hell is an "Islamic?"


Like "libtard," It's a word that serves to warn you that the speaker is probably both hateful and ignorant.
 
2013-03-13 10:23:43 PM  

Precision Boobery: *sigh*
[rlv.zcache.com image 512x512]
Perhaps one day these religious people can put down their fear and ignorance and join us in the 21st century.  Sadly, that day will probably be in the 41st century.


And perhaps one day you'll grow up and stop being an insufferable douchbag to people who don't think exactly like you.  But I'm not holding my breath.
 
2013-03-13 10:27:14 PM  

RobSeace: BgJonson79: RobSeace: BgJonson79: How can saying words possibly infringe on others' rights or safety? Unless they're being spoken at 135 dBs?

Ever heard of falsely yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater? That could certainly lead to people getting hurt, using nothing other than spoken words... There are other cases, as well... (Inciting a riot, etc...)

Yell fire does nothing but generate sound waves in the air.  People trampling others, those ACTIONS, are what cause problems.  So again I ask, what WORDS and not ACTIONS infringe on others' rights or safety?

Are you intentionally being obtuse here?



Yes.

Yes, he is.
 
2013-03-14 05:53:41 AM  

ciberido: Precision Boobery: *sigh*
[rlv.zcache.com image 512x512]
Perhaps one day these religious people can put down their fear and ignorance and join us in the 21st century.  Sadly, that day will probably be in the 41st century.

And perhaps one day you'll grow up and stop being an insufferable douchbag to people who don't think exactly like you.  But I'm not holding my breath.


Some people think the Bible is the holy word of God, other the Koran, others the talmud. Some people hold high religious texts like the Buddhavacana, the Vedas, The Satanic Bible, Dianetics, The Guru Granth Sahib, Tao Te Ching, The book of shadows, the Avesta collections, the Kojiki or similar.
Others again, are sane.
 
2013-03-14 03:30:07 PM  

washington-babylon: Do you know the way to Mordor: "... thou shalt eat the fruit of thine own body, the flesh of thy sons and of thy daughters." Deuteronomy 28:53

"And he brought forth the people that were therein, and put them under saws, and under harrows of iron, and under axes of iron, and made them pass through the brick-kiln." 2 Samuel 12:31

 As he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head. And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them." 2 Kings 23-24

"...children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished." Isaiah 13:16

" The fathers shall eat the sons in the midst of thee, and the sons shall eat their fathers."  Ezekiel 5:10

///Which is more violent, the Bible or the Koran?

Way to cherry pick your passages, troll. Way too obvious.
0/10


Troll? I don't remember being one of the extras in The Hobbit movie!
 
Displayed 47 of 97 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report