Muslims, mad again

[Plow]

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?

In what way is this different from the south park episode?

Are you honestly trying to argue that matt and trey aren't smart enough to know the likely response if they'd actually been allowed to show him?

[Plow]

Threats are considered trying to bomb now?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...Park-link.html


jesus christ, keep up


uh oh better jail me, I used the lord's name in vain and that pisses off christians

oh wait, christians aren't violent

except when we're calling them terrorists for assassinating tiller

so I guess it's not me that should be punished, it's tiller

damn people pissing off murderers, we really need to just have a law stating your skirt can't end above your calves

[archibaldcrane]

In what way is this different from the south park episode?

One wasn't intended to cause rioting or violence, and the other (in my opinion) was?

[Rhinox]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...Park-link.html


jesus christ, keep up




uh oh better jail me, I used the lord's name in vain and that pisses off christians

oh wait, christians aren't violent

except when we're calling them terrorists for assassinating tiller

so I guess it's not me that should be punished, it's tiller

damn people pissing off murderers, we really need to just have a law stating your skirt can't end above your calves

You said Threats to bomb Viacom.


Did you read what you posted you fucking dolt? they were arrested for inciting others to kill matt and trey even going as far as providing an address.

That article is just about an investigation as to if there was a link not the conclusion. Jesus fucking christ

[Plow]

So you're saying there's a difference between a person doing something that will likely result in violence and another person doing the exact same thing which will also likely result in violence.

And that difference is your opinion.

And that while you know you wouldn't win the case, you wish punishment upon one and not the other.

[archibaldcrane]

I wish punishment upon those for whom it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law that their intent was to cause rioting or violence.

It's a huge hurdle to leap, legally.

It's not "I knew it would cause rioting" - it's "I meant it to cause rioting".

You still haven't answered my question, by the way.

[Plow]

You said Threats to bomb Viacom.


Did you read what you posted you fucking dolt? they were arrested for inciting others to kill matt and trey even going as far as providing an address.

That article is just about an investigation as to if there was a link not the conclusion. Jesus fucking christ

No, I said tried to bomb viacom. You said threats.

Facts we know:

South Park pissed off Muslims.

Islamic terrorists threatened retaliation.

Islamic terrorists tried to bomb Viacom, the broadcaster of South Park.

Rhinox conclusion: totally unrelated events, because admitting reality during an internet argument is physically impossible for him.

[Rhinox]

No, I said tried to bomb viacom. You said threats.

Facts we know:

South Park pissed off Muslims.

Islamic terrorists threatened retaliation.

Islamic terrorists tried to bomb Viacom, the broadcaster of South Park.

Rhinox conclusion: totally unrelated events, because admitting reality during an internet argument is physically impossible for him.

Yeah had to be Viacom.


It couldn't have been just Time fucking square cause then it wouldn't fit your narrative.

[Rhinox]

and again you're assuming the time square bomb attempt had anything to do with South Park.

[Renzokuken]

Holy shit... The stupidity came back with a vengeance up in here.

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?

Considering that the film was made in English, and last I heard the filmmaker did not know who translated the film into Arabic, I'm not sure where people can jump to this conclusion so quickly. Not to mention people in this thread who have actually watched this film stating that it didn't seem to be about inciting violence at all.

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

Have not seen anything that Plow said that could incriminate him as a hypocrite. You might want to put together a better argument.

[Plow]

I wish punishment upon those for whom it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law that their intent was to cause rioting or violence.

It's a huge hurdle to leap, legally.

It's not "I knew it would cause rioting" - it's "I meant it to cause rioting".

You still haven't answered my question, by the way.

what question is that?

and no, I'm not going to sit around being trolled forever by a moron

[Rhinox]

Holy shit... The stupidity came back with a vengeance up in here.



Considering that the film was made in English, and last I heard the filmmaker did not know who translated the film into Arabic, I'm not sure where people can jump to this conclusion so quickly. Not to mention people in this thread who have actually watched this film stating that it didn't seem to be about inciting violence at all.



Have not seen anything that Plow said that could incriminate him as a hypocrite. You might want to put together a better argument.

Then you're not really smart and you have to lurk more.


In Summary

Video trolling dumbasses= protected free speech despite causing violence and deaths of 3 americans.

Pedophile book= Not protected free speech despite the fact there is no proof it lead to any violence.

[archibaldcrane]

what question is that?

Post right above yours.

[Renzokuken]

Then you're not really smart and you have to lurk more.

Much better argument. Thanks. I'm convinced.

[archibaldcrane]

Don't worry Renzo, Rhinox is right, you need to lurk more if you want to keep up. Everything you need to know has already been posted.

[Ksandra]

plow is plowing pretty hard in this thread.

[Rhinox]

I'm done. This is one of those famous plow arguments where despite the evidence to the contrary he's right no matter what and he has to get the last word i.e. racist texas cop thread.

[Callisto]

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


Use better examples.

Richard Pryor did end up causing an arson, just it was him lighting himself on fire instead of an embassy

[kuronosan]

look, kuro, this is what you're saying:

If people are violent in reaction to things that are utterly and completely unreasonable to be violent about, it's everyone else in the world's responsibility not to offend them.


So, if I start going around killing anyone that says the word fuck, and I make it very well known that that's my intention, and I make a big group of people that will also kill anyone that says fuck so that you can't just jail me and be done with it...

Nobody should ever say fuck again, and if they do, they carry responsibility for my actions.


Again, let me reinforce: You're arguing that violence in response to satire *SHOULD* successfully prevent said satire.

We had this argument a few hundred years ago, and most reasonable societies have agreed. Seriously, just stop.

Uh, no. I'm saying the author should be held responsible for actions he knew would incite rage. The fact that the response was hugely disproportionate to the stimulus is what the problem is. They shouldn't be acting like animals but at what point do we say "glass em for the good of mankind" versus "stop poking the lonely child"?

[Xno Kappa]

Intent of the film is irrelevant. The shit is some of the most bizarre nonsense I've ever seen but I ultimately agree, Muslims are going to muslim.