DescentBB

Here's the actual event as it happened in Garland Texas:



You may disagree and laugh at these people- but free speech is the right we should protect and not cower when the time comes to assert it and protect it.

The speeches by Geller, Spencer (brilliant) and Geert Wilders are great (Geert's is a bit over the top at times, but has to be understood.)

Unfortunately some of the attendee interviews looked like something out of an SNL skit at the end- but that's what happens when you have an open-door event (two of them were absolute jewels )

The contest winner- a former muslim; was very erudite and brilliant in his own acceptance speech. His family story will illustrate why even so-called 'moderate' islam is misogynistic and antisemitic.

no, TB, the speeches were all over-the-top, and the attendees showed the level the target audience operates at. That said, what a great thing to live in a society where such loons can express whatever they choose.

callmeslick wrote:no, TB, the speeches were all over-the-top

Why, exactly? Could you explain?

This looks to me like a bunch of people being dicks.

Vander wrote:This looks to me like a bunch of people being dicks.

So I guess you can murder someone for being offensive.

ThunderBunny wrote:

Vander wrote:This looks to me like a bunch of people being dicks.

So I guess you can murder someone for being offensive.

It depends on which God you pray to and praying to the wrong one is also offensive and deadly.

It's confusing too because the people who protested the museum celebrating art like a painting of the Virgin Mary done in feces...or a crucifix in the jar of urine....etc were considered 'being dicks' too.
Granted they were very peaceful. They didn't bring guns and try to kill the artists or museum staff but they were ridiculed for their viewpoint.

I'm going out on a limb here, but it seems to be a pretty stout one...it think the people calling them dicks, etc. aren't really operating from a principled free speech, freedom of expression/art position.
More like from an opportunistic political bullies pulpit. They are kind of dick-ish themselves actually.

ThunderBunny wrote:

callmeslick wrote:no, TB, the speeches were all over-the-top

Why, exactly? Could you explain?

the whole premise was sort of preposterous, and purposefully provocative. A peaceful people shouldn't be provokative, IMHO, and those who ARE, to my mind, are 'over the top'. I could go into the details of Geller et al, but can't be bothered with them further. They are as much the problem as the jihadists themselves.

Will Robinson wrote:

ThunderBunny wrote:

Vander wrote:This looks to me like a bunch of people being dicks.

So I guess you can murder someone for being offensive.

It depends on which God you pray to and praying to the wrong one is also offensive and deadly.

It's confusing too because the people who protested the museum celebrating art like a painting of the Virgin Mary done in feces...or a crucifix in the jar of urine....etc were considered 'being dicks' too.
Granted they were very peaceful. They didn't bring guns and try to kill the artists or museum staff but they were ridiculed for their viewpoint.

I'm going out on a limb here, but it seems to be a pretty stout one...it think the people calling them dicks, etc. aren't really operating from a principled free speech, freedom of expression/art position.
More like from an opportunistic political bullies pulpit. They are kind of dick-ish themselves actually.

Agreed. Nobody was even drawing Moe-Ham-Ed in a bad way, from the report I heard on the news. Like, he wasn't camel ★■◆●ing, as most people would probably expect from a bunch of Texans drawing the religious leader of Islamic terrorists.

callmeslick wrote:A peaceful people shouldn't be provokative, IMHO, and those who ARE, to my mind, are 'over the top'.

You're pretty provocative in this forum sometimes.

It's a form of protected speech. And it should be. You can't incite violence directly, but you can say things that people find deeply offensive.

callmeslick wrote:... I could go into the details of Geller et al, but can't be bothered with them further. They are as much the problem as the jihadists themselves.

I think you just went WAY OVER THE TOP right there.
You have equated people with mass murder as a goal with people who have publishing their offensive-to-some opinion as a goal!

The jihadis think Allah gives them a right, if not a requirement, to kill people to defend their sensitivities.

The Geller types think the protected free speech scenario gives them a right to say offensive things.

You think blurring the stark difference between those two motives and the associated results is acceptable for the sake of...well....what exactly?

callmeslick wrote:

ThunderBunny wrote:

callmeslick wrote:no, TB, the speeches were all over-the-top

Why, exactly? Could you explain?

the whole premise was sort of preposterous, and purposefully provocative. A peaceful people shouldn't be provokative, IMHO, and those who ARE, to my mind, are 'over the top'. I could go into the details of Geller et al, but can't be bothered with them further. They are as much the problem as the jihadists themselves.

Nice to hear the ol' democrat double standard again. You'll never disappoint.

So I guess to get respect and special treatment from you, I have to threaten your life for offending what I believe in. Got it.

Lothar wrote:

callmeslick wrote:A peaceful people shouldn't be provokative, IMHO, and those who ARE, to my mind, are 'over the top'.

You're pretty provocative in this forum sometimes.

It's a form of protected speech. And it should be. You can't incite violence directly, but you can say things that people find deeply offensive.

Yes Lothar, slick has been a little provocative here and so have I, but most people here wouldn't grab a gun and shoot you in response to an insult, although I'm quite sure some may have thought about it when things got really heated. Plus, speech here is also moderated, and deleted, if those insults get too personal, so in a way, we DON'T have total free speech on this forum.

Yes, we have free and protected speech in America and we treasure it. We also abuse it too. We can all freely say whatever nasty crap about anyone else we want, damned be the consequences. I'm glad I'm not in high school anymore. The internet has mechanized and amplified bullying into a new form of degradation. That said, it doesn't mean people should throw decorum out the window and deliberately sow disrespect towards others because they don't like their culture or their religion. IMHO, the ONLY reason these morons in Texas performed this little drawing stunt was to raise someone's hackles just to get a violent rise out of them. It was bait. And the fake surprise and fearful whining at actually being targeted by some crazy Islamists, was nothing but a bunch of theatrics for the cameras. Boo hoo.

Which brings another question. Should people be deliberately wielding free speech as a weapon when we already know the target(s) WILL use a weapon in response? When it affects us personally, or when it gets others involved? And you'll notice that it took a public police officer, not one of those bully, probably armed idiot contestants, to bring down those 2 shooters. They put the life of a cop on the line, who wasn't even participating in the contest, at risk, all for their little provocative and hateful free speech contest. That's free speech gone too far.

We can blame Islam for their violent behavior, but America needs to look in the mirror and reflect on our own actions a little, because most of this hatred towards the U.S. by Islamist extremism is due to our own foreign policy and military actions over the decades since white Europeans and Americans either colonized or meddled in the Middle East or in Muslim culture. I'm quite sure if a foreign country started meddling in our own country, we would take extreme, and very violent, exception. Personally, I don't like Islam. It's repressive towards women and it's still living in the past. It needs to grow up, like Christianity mostly did, which WILL take time. But there are LOTS of others on this planet that follow Islam, and to get into a snit fight over whether their religion should be wiped out or not will only bring us endless Holy War. Is that what we want, because that's what we'll get. There is NO violent solution or winners in this Holy War, only endless misery and death for everyone, until both sides grow up.

ThunderBunny wrote:

Vander wrote:This looks to me like a bunch of people being dicks.

So I guess you can murder someone for being offensive.

Happens all the time, now and in our own recent past. Just ask any black or gay person. The attackers always see their victims as an offense to "something".

Lothar wrote:

callmeslick wrote:A peaceful people shouldn't be provokative, IMHO, and those who ARE, to my mind, are 'over the top'.

You're pretty provocative in this forum sometimes.

It's a form of protected speech. And it should be. You can't incite violence directly, but you can say things that people find deeply offensive.

I agree completely, but don't have to agree with taking that position. That is every person's choice. I find this groups positions offensive, but, as I stated out the outset, glad I live in a place where they can do so.

ThunderBunny wrote:Nice to hear the ol' democrat double standard again. You'll never disappoint.

So I guess to get respect and special treatment from you, I have to threaten your life for offending what I believe in. Got it.

if you get that message from my words, either above or previous on here, you either have access to serious hallucinogens or need professional help.

ThunderBunny wrote:So I guess you can murder someone for being offensive.

Yes. That's exactly what I was thinking. Since I guess you require me to state the obvious: Murder is bad. Freedom of Speech is good. I get teary eyed at the end of Saving Private Ryan. And if you want, I can recite the Pledge of Allegiance. (and mostly mean it!)

Why must I celebrate something distasteful to show opposition to something drastically more distasteful?

It's similar to the provocative dress vs. rape topic. Is suggesting that showing your sexy bits drives men wild blaming the victim and condoning the rape? Is it invalid outright because rape is bad and the vast majority of men aren't driven to rape by seeing sexy bits? I don't think so. It seems to me a valid comment that doesn't necessarily detract from the seriousness of a crime.

Vander wrote:Why must I celebrate something distasteful to show opposition to something drastically more distasteful?

bingo!!! We have a winner!

callmeslick wrote:no, TB, the speeches were all over-the-top, and the attendees showed the level the target audience operates at. That said, what a great thing to live in a society where such loons can express whatever they choose.

Are those the same loons that painted the Virgin Mary in elephant dung?

callmeslick wrote:

Vander wrote:Why must I celebrate something distasteful to show opposition to something drastically more distasteful?

bingo!!! We have a winner!

No we don't. If we don't show opposition there may come a time when our right to do so is eliminated.

What gets me is the quote I saw from one of the organizers saying that the group wasn't expecting any sort of violent response...and yet they had a huge security presence on-hand. I hear they have a bridge they'd like to sell us too.

It is curious that some are quick to ostracize the organizers when there would of been no event if Muslims weren't quick to kill people for being offensive to their religion.

woodchip wrote:It is curious that some are quick to ostracize the organizers when there would of been no event if Muslims weren't quick to kill people for being offensive to their religion.

That is a distinction that they will always try to dismiss when in fact it is the cornerstone of the whole problem. But you should have qualified it isn't something 'muslims do'...it is something far too many of their leaders condone and support but most muslims are not on board with it.

Heh, true. If drawing the prophet didn't offend Muslims, I'm sure these people wouldn't give two sh!ts about it.

woodchip wrote:It is curious that some are quick to ostracize the organizers when there would of been no event if Muslims weren't quick to kill people for being offensive to their religion.

First off, I agree that shooting someone over their views is just plain stupid, wrong and uncivilized. These Jihadists need to grow up from their adolescence and get a life. They're nothing but over-testosteroned juvenile delinquents using their religion as an excuse to perform murder and mayhem. But everyone else stooping to their level like a bunch of teasing children will not solve the problem, it will only perpetuate it. We have the right to poke that tiger in it's cage with a stick, but if we do it within reach of it's claws, we will get mauled, freedom to poke or not.

Secondly, the AFDI is not all peaches and cream themselves. They exist solely as a hate group towards Muslims. They are almost as low and vile, short of murder, as those they seek to intimidate. They ARE the same as that Fred Phelps Church that goes around spreading nothing but hate. Hate only begets hate. They must want to keep the violence going on forever. How so very Christian of them.

Besides, Texans must be absolutely bats**t in the first place. They don't want those Islamic terrorists crossing the border into their state from Mexico, but NOW they don't want the federal military to help either. They USED to like the federal military, so I wonder why they don't now? {"cough" President Obama!}

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morn ... -in-texas/

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2015 ... nears.html

Vander wrote:Heh, true. If drawing the prophet didn't offend Muslims, I'm sure these people wouldn't give two sh!ts about it.

I think the thing that makes them give a ★■◆● is the number of offended muslims reacting as psychotic mass murderers instead of the typical offended 21st century followers of the religion of peace...
That is kind of a big deal worthy of a little spotlighting.

Who would've known there were terrorists if not for these brave heroes.

Vander wrote:Who would've known there were terrorists if not for these brave heroes.

Who wouldn't want to create some peer pressure as incentive for the muslim community to clean up its culture?

It isn't exactly the kind of dysfunctionality that can just be ignored out of deference to their feelings. These people aren't just belching loudly at the dinner table based on some old tradition. They are cutting heads off of rival religious followers by the frikking hundreds!

tunnelcat wrote:...
First off, I agree that shooting someone over their views is just plain stupid, wrong and uncivilized. These Jihadists need to grow up from their adolescence and get a life. They're nothing but over-testosteroned juvenile delinquents using their religion as an excuse to perform murder and mayhem. But everyone else stooping to their level like a bunch of teasing children will not solve the problem, it will only perpetuate it. ...

It isn't stooping to their level! It isn't even on the same planet.

No one is kidnapping random innocent muslims and chopping their heads off to display on video while proselytizing about 'everyone must submit themselves to Buddhism, Judaism or Christianity'!
Why do you feel the need to attempt to establish equivalence?

Ridiculing them is the civilized way to make a statement about what we see as wrong in their culture. It's like what you do with Sarah Palin....
If Sarah Palin was driving around murdering liberals would your jokes and snarky comments about her be "stooping to her level"?!?

tunnelcat wrote:Which brings another question. Should people be deliberately wielding free speech as a weapon when we already know the target(s) WILL use a weapon in response? When it affects us personally, or when it gets others involved? And you'll notice that it took a public police officer, not one of those bully, probably armed idiot contestants, to bring down those 2 shooters. They put the life of a cop on the line, who wasn't even participating in the contest, at risk, all for their little provocative and hateful free speech contest. That's free speech gone too far.

I'm going to tell you about my kids in response:

My four year old has these "my little pony" toys that she loves, and that are hers. My one year old loves to sneak up and swipe them... and it makes the four year old so mad. When it happens, and the four year old hits the one year old in retaliation, here's what I do: I make the one year old give the pony back and tell her not to take them... but I send the four year old to her room for a timeout. Why? Because stealing (to play with, not to keep) the other's toy is annoying and offensive, but not personally damaging. Hitting is damaging, and flatly not acceptable.

My bottom line: if you're the one shooting, you're the one who's criminal... I don't care what was done to you. If you're the one being obnoxious maybe you shouldn't, but at the same time I'll fight hard to protect your legal right be be exactly that.

Do you really think we need to stop offending these people?
Or keep challenging them and encourage others to stop making excuses and ridiculous rationale to protect, and thus enable, them?

Will Robinson wrote:Who wouldn't want to create some peer pressure as incentive for the muslim community to clean up its culture?

By the look of it, this AFDI group. Looks to me like a bunch of people being dicks.

snoopy wrote:My bottom line: if you're the one shooting, you're the one who's criminal... I don't care what was done to you. If you're the one being obnoxious maybe you shouldn't, but at the same time I'll fight hard to protect your legal right be be exactly that.

seems pretty fair determination to me. My only other point above is that we live in a nation that celebrates free speech, yet allows a special interest to weaken existant law so as to make free speech dangerous, by allowing psychopaths to arm themselves.

snoopy wrote:I'm going to tell you about my kids in response:

My four year old has these "my little pony" toys that she loves, and that are hers. My one year old loves to sneak up and swipe them... and it makes the four year old so mad. When it happens, and the four year old hits the one year old in retaliation, here's what I do: I make the one year old give the pony back and tell her not to take them... but I send the four year old to her room for a timeout. Why? Because stealing (to play with, not to keep) the other's toy is annoying and offensive, but not personally damaging. Hitting is damaging, and flatly not acceptable.

My bottom line: if you're the one shooting, you're the one who's criminal... I don't care what was done to you. If you're the one being obnoxious maybe you shouldn't, but at the same time I'll fight hard to protect your legal right be be exactly that.

These people are not children. There is no timeout room for them. They have no parents, no morals and no moral authority that looms over them. They have taken a religious passion and made it their life's mission. These people are free thinking people who kill and murder at will and have an unending hate for all things Western. My question to you and others here is, how do you stop the cycle of violence? There's absolutely no way to kill them all, ever. They'll keep breeding and making new terrorists, as long as they have a common target to hate, the West. There are too many places for them to craw into and hide on this earth, places we can't reach. Hate is a powerful motivator. It can go on in perpetuity. So we either step back like adults and quit making reasons for people to hate us, which we seem to enjoy doing as a nation, or bankrupt ourselves morally and monetarily trying to kill them all. That's it.

tunnelcat wrote:These people are not children. There is no timeout room for them. They have no parents, no morals and no moral authority that looms over them. They have taken a religious passion and made it their life's mission. These people are free thinking people who kill and murder at will and have an unending hate for all things Western. My question to you and others here is, how do you stop the cycle of violence? There's absolutely no way to kill them all, ever. They'll keep breeding and making new terrorists, as long as they have a common target to hate, the West. There are too many places for them to craw into and hide on this earth, places we can't reach. Hate is a powerful motivator. It can go on in perpetuity. So we either step back like adults and quit making reasons for people to hate us, which we seem to enjoy doing as a nation, or bankrupt ourselves morally and monetarily trying to kill them all. That's it.

You kid yourself if you think you can eliminate hate by taking away people's "reasons" for hating. Humanity has a long and ugly history of hating others simply for existing. It's a fool's errand to try to appease those who hate because hate is also insatiable. I'm not saying that I agree with the Texans... I'm saying that there is no end to the censorship that will be necessary to appease everyone who may hate. I'm not sure how the moral bankruptcy figures in... but you don't have to try to "kill them all" - you just have to make terrorism cost-prohibitive (cost in a general sense, not just in a dollars sense). I see it as the same principle as home security: no means of home security will absolutely protect you from theft - it just makes it difficult enough that your house isn't worth it to the robber.

callmeslick wrote:
seems pretty fair determination to me. My only other point above is that we live in a nation that celebrates free speech, yet allows a special interest to weaken existant law so as to make free speech dangerous, by allowing psychopaths to arm themselves.

Wrong, psychopaths are not allowed to buy guns unless of course you are a front for the DOJ participating in Fast and Furious.

ah, the gratuitous anti-government rant(this time against a Bush admin program). These guys obtained them.

Vander wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:Who wouldn't want to create some peer pressure as incentive for the muslim community to clean up its culture?

By the look of it, this AFDI group. Looks to me like a bunch of people being dicks.

It looks like the event in question is them quite narrowly focused on being dicks only to psychopathic mass murderers and those who want to enable them. I'm not seeing a major downside to that.
On the other hand, the mass murderers are a real problem...

tunnelcat wrote:These people are free thinking people who kill and murder at will and have an unending hate for all things Western..... They'll keep breeding and making new terrorists..... quit making reasons for people to hate us

The only way to do that is for all of us to quit breeding and making new non-Islamist children. Otherwise, they'll continue to hate because their ideology says to hate people who won't submit to their rule.

It's not my kid's job to make bullies quit hating, because the bullies' motivations are a combination of the internal (their own insecurities) and existential (they have a problem with "smart kids" just for existing). And it's not our job to make terrorists quit hating "all things Western", because their motivation is a combination of their internal wackjob ideology and an existential hatred of outsiders just for existing.

callmeslick wrote:ah, the gratuitous anti-government rant(this time against a Bush admin program). These guys obtained them.

Ah, the gratuitous blame it on Bush retort. Weak.

callmeslick wrote:

Vander wrote:Why must I celebrate something distasteful to show opposition to something drastically more distasteful?

bingo!!! We have a winner!