Muslims, mad again

**archibaldcrane** · 2012-09-14 19:23

Jesus Christ Rhinox just completely fucking dismantled Plow, this is amazing.

It's cool when I argue on different sides of similar topics than Plow and am right both times.

I love BG.

**mallister** · 2012-09-14 19:24

[QUOTE=Kurokikaze;5396941]We walk a very thin line when we try to appease people that are clearly too stupid to understand why their actions shouldn't be accepted in a 21st century society. QUOTE]

problem is, that for the majority of the people living under islam, they are not living in anything close to a 21st century society. the gulf between our dirt poor and just the average person i saw living in kabul is so vast that it is unfathomable for most people if they have not witnessed it firsthand.

expecting them to just up and function like a full-fledged modern democracy complete with a bill of rights is not...realistic. i don't have the words to describe how stupid this is.

**archibaldcrane** · 2012-09-14 19:26

Thing is this: If you believe this guy wasn't intentionally trying to incite violence among Muslims, then sure - go ahead and make your free speech arguments.

I just disagree with that assessment - I think that's exactly what he was attempting to do - I mean, the subterfuge of having the actors say a different name and then dubbing "Mohammed" in there? C'maaaan it's crystal clear what he was trying to do.

**Xno Kappa** · 2012-09-14 19:28

Originally Posted by mallister

expecting them to just up and function like a full-fledged modern democracy complete with a bill of rights is not...realistic. i don't have the words to describe how stupid this is.

You're right, no point in treating them as equals like the retards they are.

**Plow** · 2012-09-14 19:32

Originally Posted by archibaldcrane

Thing is this: If you believe this guy wasn't intentionally trying to incite violence among Muslims, then sure - go ahead and make your free speech arguments.

I just disagree with that assessment - I think that's exactly what he was attempting to do - I mean, the subterfuge of having the actors say a different name and then dubbing "Mohammed" in there? C'maaaan it's crystal clear what he was trying to do.

Again, he did not call for violence in any way, shape, or form.

He did not guide people on how to commit violence.

You're saying that the way to prevent people from saying shit you don't like is to kill them, and if people choose that course of action we have to respect that.

**Xno Kappa** · 2012-09-14 19:32

Didn't know BG was so Islamophobic lol.

**Plow** · 2012-09-14 19:33

And actually, not even to kill them, but to just kill any random person you can get access to that you can relate in any way, shape, or form to the person that said shit you don't like.

**archibaldcrane** · 2012-09-14 19:35

Originally Posted by Plow

Again, he did not call for violence in any way, shape, or form.

He did not guide people on how to commit violence.

You should probably brush up on the definitions of intent and incite.

**Plow** · 2012-09-14 19:36

Originally Posted by Hirokei Kiaza

Didn't know BG was so Islamophobic lol.

It's totally not prejudice against muslims.

It's just that anyone that says or does anything to piss off muslims should be punished, cuz we all know how those people will react.

And you know exactly what they mean when they say "those people."

**Rhinox** · 2012-09-14 19:37

Holy quickly he glossed over the fact that he was being a hypocrite. tsk tsk tsk

**archibaldcrane** · 2012-09-14 19:38

Originally Posted by Plow

It's totally not prejudice against muslims.

It's just that anyone that says or does anything to piss off muslims should be punished

Nope.

Intent matters.

Again, if you believe the intent of this was anything other than to cause rioting among muslims, then you're welcome to that opinion and the ensuing free speech debate.

If you think his actions were purely to cause rioting and violence, well, then, what are we arguing about?

**archibaldcrane** · 2012-09-14 19:39

Similarly, if you think the pedophile guide was published to promote sexual molestation of children, then feel free to talk about punishment of the author.

But if you think it wasn't published to promote sexual molestation of children, and had a different motive, then it should be protected under free speech.

**Plow** · 2012-09-14 19:39

Originally Posted by archibaldcrane

You should probably brush up on the definitions of intent and incite.

Richard Pryor should be punished.

South Park should be punished.

Anyone that's ever done anything that pisses off muslims should be punished, because we know what the reaction will be.

You fucking work in film and you're arguing that we should be able to tell a person what they were thinking when they produced a movie that had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the response in any way, shape, or form, aside from you stating that it was "obviously" intended to get people to respond violently.

Then, punish them according to our determination of their intent, even if our determination of their intent has absolutely nothing to do with the actual content of the film.

**archibaldcrane** · 2012-09-14 19:41

The fact that intent matters is what makes it very hard to bring criminal charges - how do you determine the intent of "the artist"? Not gonna happen, he won't be charged.

But that doesn't negate the ability to judge the situation as a person, assuming a "perfect knowledge" environment.

**Rhinox** · 2012-09-14 19:41

South Park and Richard Prior didn't get anyone killed.

Use better examples.

**Plow** · 2012-09-14 19:43

Yeah, it's not like anyone ever tried to bomb Viacom or anything.

Oh, I get it, the punishment of the person that said something offensive should be determined by the level of the success of the retaliation.

**archibaldcrane** · 2012-09-14 19:43

And the intent of that south park episode, or Richard Pryor, isn't to incite rioting or violence.

Strawmen everywhere!

Plow, honest question - do you believe that this filmmaker was attempting to incite rioting or violence among muslims by producing and distributing this film? Simple question - do you think that was his intent?

**archibaldcrane** · 2012-09-14 19:44

Originally Posted by Rhinox

South Park and Richard Prior didn't get anyone killed.

Use better examples.

Bad argument.

Originally Posted by Plow

Oh, I get it, the punishment of the person that said something offensive should be determined by the level of the success of the retaliation.

And that's why.

It's not about whether people riot or kill in response - it's about whether that was the goal.

**Plow** · 2012-09-14 19:44

Not to mention that's beside the point anyway, I was actually referring to the scientology shit and pointing out that you're arguing that it's ok to make fun of people that aren't known to be violent, and that rules out making fun of Islam.

**Rhinox** · 2012-09-14 19:45

Originally Posted by Plow

Yeah, it's not like anyone ever tried to bomb Viacom or anything.

Oh, I get it, the punishment of the person that said something offensive should be determined by the level of the success of the retaliation.

Threats are considered trying to bomb now?

Thread: Muslims, mad again

Thread Tools

Latest Threads

Up & Coming Threads

Hottest Threads