Security guard injured in Texas Muhammed cartoon conference

bitslice · 29 May 2015 at 12:58

Personally I wouldn't want to live near people who want to die for their religion, so if the only way of flushing them out is to goad them by mocking their top pixie, then this sounds like a good idea.

What's the alternative? Tapping their phone for years in the hope of a bomb plot or just giving them a helpful nudge.

We do the same with animals by culling the old and diseased, this is just culling the dangers to society. It's basically a kindness.

dowie · 29 May 2015 at 13:22

bitslice said:
Personally I wouldn't want to live near people who want to die for their religion, so if the only way of flushing them out is to goad them by mocking their top pixie, then this sounds like a good idea.

Best stay away from East London, Bradford, Birmingham, Luton etc...

Thankfully the areas people who would die for their religion live in tend to be complete dumps

SciNeT · 30 May 2015 at 13:59

So nothing happened then, I did doubt they were going to show knowing that well armed citizens were there to defend themselves. 500 in attendance, these things seem to be growing.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3103341/ISIS-calls-lone-wolf-attacks-Phoenix-man-planning-purposefully-provocative-Draw-Muhammad-competition-organizer-asks-attendees-bring-guns.html

ginjaninja · 30 May 2015 at 16:26

if exercising your freedom of speech serves no purpose And youve intentionally offended someone in the process..

then you havent succeeded in supporting free speech you have undermined free speech.
youve ended up with 'less' than what you started with... You have to get something positive for the negative outcomes caused.

This event has shown free speech in a bad light and is not supporting the positive aspects of free speech in any way.

When we choose to limit our freedom in the widest of interests, we are not 'less' free..

There must have been more effective ways of vocalising the organisers best points of view! Unfortunately the organisers probably see the way it turned out as supporting their fearful position, rather than the 2 sads dont make a happy we got instead.

Vulcan · 30 May 2015 at 16:59

ginjaninja said:
if exercising your freedom of speech serves no purpose And youve intentionally offended someone in the process..

then you havent succeeded in supporting free speech you have undermined free speech.

It serves a purpose to the individual expressing themselves. In this particular case it serves the purpose of showing that people will not be bullied into submission by the religious.

ginjaninja said:
This event has shown free speech in a bad light and is not supporting the positive aspects of free speech in any way.

That's the whole point of freedom of speech. If everyone only said nice things we wouldn't need it. Freedom of speech is there to offend, criticise and condemn.

ginjaninja · 30 May 2015 at 19:31

Freedom of speech does not operate in isolation, to the exclusion of other values.

'Freedom of speech is there to offend, criticise and condemn'

offend, criticise, condemn are not 1st order purposes of free speech, they are common bedfellows...it seems reasonable that you need to get something worthwhile in return for harm caused...you dont just 'do it for kicks'..

if what they were getting was 'showing that people will not be bullied into submission by the religious', There must have been more fruitful ways for them to spend their energies in the pursuit of this goal.

This event seems too far away from the legitimacy of constructive criticism to support, this was a stunt in bad taste to provoke a response with no upside.

Johno please? · 30 May 2015 at 19:45

ginjaninja said:
There must have been more fruitful ways for them to spend their energies in the pursuit of this goal.

.

It's their choice though..... hence the term "freedom of expression"

Vulcan · 30 May 2015 at 19:45

ginjaninja said:
offend, criticise, condemn are not 1st order purposes of free speech

Then what is?

ginjaninja said:
if what they were getting was 'showing that people will not be bullied into submission by the religious', There must have been more fruitful ways for them to spend their energies in the pursuit of this goal.

Such as?

ginjaninja · 30 May 2015 at 21:29

Johno please? said:
It's their choice though..... hence the term "freedom of expression"

yes, it great to have that freedom....it would have been greater to use it more wisely.

just because we can do something, doesnt mean we should..

When we choose to limit our freedom in the widest of interests, we are not 'less' free..

ginjaninja · 30 May 2015 at 21:35

Longbow said:
Then what is?

Freedom of speech is the political right to communicate one's opinions and ideas.

perhaps what i should have said to make my point clearer was eg. offence is sometime a necessary evil in the pursuit of the above but NOT the raison d'etre.

Such as?

not sure, more of a plea to decency than a certain idea..will have a think.

Vulcan · 30 May 2015 at 22:00

ginjaninja said:
Freedom of speech is the political right to communicate one's opinions and ideas.

Including criticism and ridicule, which is what is happening.

You're defending those who don't want others to draw a stick figure with the name mohammed under it. Ridiculous.

ginjaninja said:
not sure, more of a plea to decency than a certain idea..will have a think.

That's been done, but they still think we should abide by their religion.

bitslice · 30 May 2015 at 22:22

\O/
..|
./.\

ASCII Mo

come at me bro.

[FnG]magnolia · 30 May 2015 at 22:24

bitslice said:
\O/
..|
./.\

ASCII Mo

come at me bro.

Really? That's all you've got to two very specific push backs?

bitslice · 30 May 2015 at 22:30

[FnG]magnolia;28106156 said:
Really? That's all you've got to two very specific push backs?

It's just a quick joke....

and "pushbacks", you've lost me?

[FnG]magnolia · 30 May 2015 at 22:34

bitslice said:
It's just a quick joke....

and "pushbacks", you've lost me?

I liked it

You are unfamiliar with the term 'push back' where someone counter argues your point? Perhaps a poor choice of words on my behalf, sorry.

bitslice · 30 May 2015 at 22:50

I think I kind of got the jist, I was just confused because I didn't think I'd said anything worth replying to

This is just something Americans seem a bit touchy over and culturally it's hard to say if this was a valid response. If they expect everyone to follow the American dream, then a single identifiable group that doesn't must be a bit threatening to them.

dowie · 31 May 2015 at 00:01

[FnG]magnolia;28106191 said:
You are unfamiliar with the term 'push back' where someone counter argues your point? Perhaps a poor choice of words on my behalf, sorry.

Sounded like prison talk to me...

asim18 · 31 May 2015 at 00:38

bitslice said:
No of course not, you are just reading your book all wrong.
Sort yourselves out before anyone else dies, m'kay ?

Quoted for truth.

The amount of times people tell me something is in the Quran, and it simply does not exist, or has been grossly misinterpreted/indoctrinated, is quite ridiculous to be honest. The sad thing is loads of these people are simply illiterate and they lack the comprehension to be able to read it for themselves. And its not even extremist views, more random things. In my experience I've never met a truly extremist Muslim, but I have met many decent people who are Muslims and and even they have been brainwashed into believing some things. Now imagine a person who is a psychopath, introduce him to Islam and he's going to shape it into his own sick twisted advantage.

I believe this stems from the fact that Muslims kids are taught to pointlessly spend their time reading the Arabic version because it makes God happy. People should focus on learning a modern useful language like English, and learning it well enough to be able to truly enjoy such a magnificent book, even if it means reading a translation.

There's only so much you can learn from the people around you, especially from these you know those greedy ********* who kill or send people to kill innocent people because they believe it's sending them closer to their God.

asim18 · 31 May 2015 at 00:43

Tefal said:
they're not unhinged though they're quite rational.

It's rational to believe in skyfairies who told you to kill some guy because that guy dissed some invisible don's main man, and that in doing so one can get closer to this invisible don?

sand_dune · 31 May 2015 at 00:55

Every religious person is equally bad. But we can't ban religion, as it will limit our options of who we make business with. Just get along with religions and and enforce law on those who break it. Further discussions about religion are completely pointless. Religious people are always wrong, but they are high in numbers, so you can't do anything to them as they'll lobby for themselves.