Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Behold the face of American Free Speech/Anti-Islam

Page 3 of 4 [ 55 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

luan78zao
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 24 Nov 2014
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 490
Location: Under a cat

31 May 2015, 8:43 am

Kraichgauer wrote:
And yes, the shooters in Texas had worshiped at that particular Arizona mosque, but that hardly makes everyone else worshiping there guilty of their crimes.


If Christian radicals were going around murdering people in the name of Jesus, you better believe the church they attended would attract protests and other attention. Who taught that pair that violence was the appropriate response to blasphemy?


Quote:
But that still doesn't mean that there was ever any sort of moral equivalency between them and racist bigots. That would be like saying there's a moral equivalency between the fire fighter and the arsonist.


What racist bigots? Islam is not a race, it is an ideology. One may be vehemently opposed to Islam and be neither a racist nor a bigot.

Your analogy is inapt. Individual rights aren't just for the people you like. As far as I am concerned those who defend individual rights stand on one side; those who violate rights, and their apologists, stand on the other.


_________________
"We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission – which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force." – Ayn Rand


AspieUtah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jun 2014
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Brigham City, Utah

31 May 2015, 8:46 am

Kraichgauer wrote:
AspieUtah wrote:
Our constitutional protection of the natural right of free speech means nothing if it doesn't protect unpopular speech.

Sure, absolutely; but I'm just saying that, as with any right, one has to use it responsibly....

"Responsibly" is a moral descriptor with all the attendant expectations. "Legally" or even "lawfully" might be a better choice of word. You remember the ACLU and the neo-Nazis of Skokie, Ill.? It was an even bigger deal than the few hundred protestors and counter-protestors in Arizona yesterday. They spoke very unpopular words within a predominantly Jewish township where many citizens were Holocaust survivors, but, in doing so legally and lawfully, re-affirmed everyone's right to say what they wished just inches from each others' faces.

Kraichgauer wrote:
...Those bigoted kooks in Arizona have the right to say whatever they want, but that line bordering every right would have been crossed if someone acted out violently because of their words.

Incitement requires some very exacting conditions. If the opponents, instead of the supporters, of "those bigoted kooks in Arizona" were to be incited by the "kooks" words, would the "kooks" still be culpable in your opinion? The "fighting words" doctrine says definitely "maybe." The doctrine is often quoted by the fighters in a crowd who fail to remember that its application is determined by a judge's opinion of what "the average person" might do under the same conditions, not the fighters themselves.

The truism that constitutional rights can be restricted in certain conditions doesn't mean that just anybody (including those who champion sharia law over U.S. constitutional law) can twist them into something of their own choosing or act illegally or unlawfully after others do it for them.


_________________
Diagnosed in 2015 with ASD Level 1 by the University of Utah Health Care Autism Spectrum Disorder Clinic using the ADOS-2 Module 4 assessment instrument [11/30] -- Screened in 2014 with ASD by using the University of Cambridge Autism Research Centre AQ (Adult) [43/50]; EQ-60 for adults [11/80]; FQ [43/135]; SQ (Adult) [130/150] self-reported screening inventories -- Assessed since 1978 with an estimated IQ [≈145] by several clinicians -- Contact on WrongPlanet.net by private message (PM)


naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 70
Gender: Male
Posts: 35,189
Location: temperate zone

31 May 2015, 10:17 am

Right.

They're not just being hooligans looking for an excuse for a brawl.

Theyre being heroes because - if it results in a few gun deaths- that will have the intended effect. The effect being: all one billion Muslims in the world will instantly drop Islam (and adopt Christianity, or secular humanism, or Mormonism, or whatever the heck these guys imagine them doing).

This stunt will cause the whole Islamic world (from Morocco east to the Phillipines) to just magically instantly disappear!
So lets all get behind this hocus pocus!



AspieUtah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jun 2014
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Brigham City, Utah

31 May 2015, 10:46 am

naturalplastic wrote:
Right.

They're not just being hooligans looking for an excuse for a brawl.

Theyre being heroes because - if it results in a few gun deaths- that will have the intended effect. The effect being: all one billion Muslims in the world will instantly drop Islam (and adopt Christianity, or secular humanism, or Mormonism, or whatever the heck these guys imagine them doing).

This stunt will cause the whole Islamic world (from Morocco east to the Phillipines) to just magically instantly disappear!
So lets all get behind this hocus pocus!

Huh?!? :?


_________________
Diagnosed in 2015 with ASD Level 1 by the University of Utah Health Care Autism Spectrum Disorder Clinic using the ADOS-2 Module 4 assessment instrument [11/30] -- Screened in 2014 with ASD by using the University of Cambridge Autism Research Centre AQ (Adult) [43/50]; EQ-60 for adults [11/80]; FQ [43/135]; SQ (Adult) [130/150] self-reported screening inventories -- Assessed since 1978 with an estimated IQ [≈145] by several clinicians -- Contact on WrongPlanet.net by private message (PM)


Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,670
Location: Seattle-ish

31 May 2015, 11:32 am

AspieUtah wrote:
naturalplastic wrote:
Right.

They're not just being hooligans looking for an excuse for a brawl.

Theyre being heroes because - if it results in a few gun deaths- that will have the intended effect. The effect being: all one billion Muslims in the world will instantly drop Islam (and adopt Christianity, or secular humanism, or Mormonism, or whatever the heck these guys imagine them doing).

This stunt will cause the whole Islamic world (from Morocco east to the Phillipines) to just magically instantly disappear!
So lets all get behind this hocus pocus!

Huh?!? :?


It's his inept Jon Stewart routine, he thinks it's clever.


_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.

- Rick Sanchez


naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 70
Gender: Male
Posts: 35,189
Location: temperate zone

31 May 2015, 11:45 am

Dox47 wrote:
AspieUtah wrote:
naturalplastic wrote:
Right.

They're not just being hooligans looking for an excuse for a brawl.

Theyre being heroes because - if it results in a few gun deaths- that will have the intended effect. The effect being: all one billion Muslims in the world will instantly drop Islam (and adopt Christianity, or secular humanism, or Mormonism, or whatever the heck these guys imagine them doing).

This stunt will cause the whole Islamic world (from Morocco east to the Phillipines) to just magically instantly disappear!
So lets all get behind this hocus pocus!

Huh?!? :?


It's his inept Jon Stewart routine, he thinks it's clever.


I apologize for making you think..that I think...that I am being clever...or whatever this crime is that I commited that I am being accused of.

But...okay I get that its kinda like the civil right sit ins in dinners but...

ending segregation was an identifiable goal -that proved to be attainable.

What exactly is this terrorism-baiting supposed to accomplish?

Descredit Muslims in order to get Muslims to do..what...exactly?



AspieUtah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jun 2014
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Brigham City, Utah

31 May 2015, 12:01 pm

naturalplastic wrote:
...What exactly is this terrorism-baiting supposed to accomplish?

Descredit Muslims in order to get Muslims to do..what...exactly?

Well, I don't believe that all Muslims are responsible for the terrorism that has been exercised since the 1990s. In fact, I believe that only a relative handful (those like Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab who have been recruited by U.S. interests) are responsible for it; but, we aren't supposed to talk about that are we? Meanwhile, I do have a problem with the useful idiots within Islam who are now demanding (and in certain jurisdictions, succeeding with) the adoption of sharia-related jurisprudence instead of U.S. constitutional jurisprudence.


_________________
Diagnosed in 2015 with ASD Level 1 by the University of Utah Health Care Autism Spectrum Disorder Clinic using the ADOS-2 Module 4 assessment instrument [11/30] -- Screened in 2014 with ASD by using the University of Cambridge Autism Research Centre AQ (Adult) [43/50]; EQ-60 for adults [11/80]; FQ [43/135]; SQ (Adult) [130/150] self-reported screening inventories -- Assessed since 1978 with an estimated IQ [≈145] by several clinicians -- Contact on WrongPlanet.net by private message (PM)


Aristophanes
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Apr 2014
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,603
Location: USA

31 May 2015, 12:30 pm

My opinion on the matter is it's just like the internet: ignore the attention seeking trolls and they'll just disappear.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,241
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

31 May 2015, 1:27 pm

luan78zao wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
And yes, the shooters in Texas had worshiped at that particular Arizona mosque, but that hardly makes everyone else worshiping there guilty of their crimes.


If Christian radicals were going around murdering people in the name of Jesus, you better believe the church they attended would attract protests and other attention. Who taught that pair that violence was the appropriate response to blasphemy?


Quote:
But that still doesn't mean that there was ever any sort of moral equivalency between them and racist bigots. That would be like saying there's a moral equivalency between the fire fighter and the arsonist.


What racist bigots? Islam is not a race, it is an ideology. One may be vehemently opposed to Islam and be neither a racist nor a bigot.

Your analogy is inapt. Individual rights aren't just for the people you like. As far as I am concerned those who defend individual rights stand on one side; those who violate rights, and their apologists, stand on the other.


Do you really think those bigots don't associate brown skin with the Islamic religion? If you don't, then you're very much naive, or blinded by ideology.
And when the hell did I ever say that rights were only for people I like? I'm just saying that people - whoever they are - should think before opening their mouths. What's possibly wrong with practicing a little responsibility with freedom? But I don't ever recall saying that such persons shouldn't be allowed to say whatever they want.
And who knows, maybe there is a radical element in that mosque that inspired the shooters - though more likely, they were encouraged by ISIS on line. That doesn't mean that every member of that community of Muslims is guilty.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,241
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

31 May 2015, 1:33 pm

AspieUtah wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
AspieUtah wrote:
Our constitutional protection of the natural right of free speech means nothing if it doesn't protect unpopular speech.

Sure, absolutely; but I'm just saying that, as with any right, one has to use it responsibly....

"Responsibly" is a moral descriptor with all the attendant expectations. "Legally" or even "lawfully" might be a better choice of word. You remember the ACLU and the neo-Nazis of Skokie, Ill.? It was an even bigger deal than the few hundred protestors and counter-protestors in Arizona yesterday. They spoke very unpopular words within a predominantly Jewish township where many citizens were Holocaust survivors, but, in doing so legally and lawfully, re-affirmed everyone's right to say what they wished just inches from each others' faces.

Kraichgauer wrote:
...Those bigoted kooks in Arizona have the right to say whatever they want, but that line bordering every right would have been crossed if someone acted out violently because of their words.

Incitement requires some very exacting conditions. If the opponents, instead of the supporters, of "those bigoted kooks in Arizona" were to be incited by the "kooks" words, would the "kooks" still be culpable in your opinion? The "fighting words" doctrine says definitely "maybe." The doctrine is often quoted by the fighters in a crowd who fail to remember that its application is determined by a judge's opinion of what "the average person" might do under the same conditions, not the fighters themselves.

The truism that constitutional rights can be restricted in certain conditions doesn't mean that just anybody (including those who champion sharia law over U.S. constitutional law) can twist them into something of their own choosing or act illegally or unlawfully after others do it for them.


If the opponents of the kooks in question had reacted violently, then they would most assuredly be at fault, but it's still obvious that said kooks were the ones who had sought that response.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


AspieUtah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jun 2014
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Brigham City, Utah

31 May 2015, 1:38 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
If the opponents of the kooks in question had reacted violently, then they would most assuredly be at fault, but it's still obvious that said kooks were the ones who had sought that response.

As I wrote, "fighting words" is a tenuous presumption to make. We never know how a court would accept that notion. Baiting others with speech is still protected speech. It is the legal obligation of the listener(s) to check their own responses except in the slimmest of areas within the "fighting words" doctrine.


_________________
Diagnosed in 2015 with ASD Level 1 by the University of Utah Health Care Autism Spectrum Disorder Clinic using the ADOS-2 Module 4 assessment instrument [11/30] -- Screened in 2014 with ASD by using the University of Cambridge Autism Research Centre AQ (Adult) [43/50]; EQ-60 for adults [11/80]; FQ [43/135]; SQ (Adult) [130/150] self-reported screening inventories -- Assessed since 1978 with an estimated IQ [≈145] by several clinicians -- Contact on WrongPlanet.net by private message (PM)


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,241
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

31 May 2015, 1:44 pm

AspieUtah wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
If the opponents of the kooks in question had reacted violently, then they would most assuredly be at fault, but it's still obvious that said kooks were the ones who had sought that response.

As I wrote, "fighting words" is a tenuous presumption to make. We never know how a court would accept that notion. Baiting others with speech is still protected speech. It is the legal obligation of the listener(s) to check their own responses except in the slimmest of areas within the "fighting words" doctrine.


That very well may be the law, but the law and common sense can be strangers to one another. It's obvious that those kooks were looking for a response from the Muslims, who they believed all fit into one violent stereotype.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


AspieUtah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jun 2014
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Brigham City, Utah

31 May 2015, 1:47 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
AspieUtah wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
If the opponents of the kooks in question had reacted violently, then they would most assuredly be at fault, but it's still obvious that said kooks were the ones who had sought that response.

As I wrote, "fighting words" is a tenuous presumption to make. We never know how a court would accept that notion. Baiting others with speech is still protected speech. It is the legal obligation of the listener(s) to check their own responses except in the slimmest of areas within the "fighting words" doctrine.

That very well may be the law, but the law and common sense can be strangers to one another. It's obvious that those kooks were looking for a response from the Muslims, who they believed all fit into one violent stereotype.

Yes, and vice versa. It is good that neither party acted illegally in response to those taunts.


_________________
Diagnosed in 2015 with ASD Level 1 by the University of Utah Health Care Autism Spectrum Disorder Clinic using the ADOS-2 Module 4 assessment instrument [11/30] -- Screened in 2014 with ASD by using the University of Cambridge Autism Research Centre AQ (Adult) [43/50]; EQ-60 for adults [11/80]; FQ [43/135]; SQ (Adult) [130/150] self-reported screening inventories -- Assessed since 1978 with an estimated IQ [≈145] by several clinicians -- Contact on WrongPlanet.net by private message (PM)


Booyakasha
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 Oct 2009
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,898

31 May 2015, 2:17 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
luan78zao wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
And yes, the shooters in Texas had worshiped at that particular Arizona mosque, but that hardly makes everyone else worshiping there guilty of their crimes.


If Christian radicals were going around murdering people in the name of Jesus, you better believe the church they attended would attract protests and other attention. Who taught that pair that violence was the appropriate response to blasphemy?


Quote:
But that still doesn't mean that there was ever any sort of moral equivalency between them and racist bigots. That would be like saying there's a moral equivalency between the fire fighter and the arsonist.


What racist bigots? Islam is not a race, it is an ideology. One may be vehemently opposed to Islam and be neither a racist nor a bigot.

Your analogy is inapt. Individual rights aren't just for the people you like. As far as I am concerned those who defend individual rights stand on one side; those who violate rights, and their apologists, stand on the other.


Do you really think those bigots don't associate brown skin with the Islamic religion? If you don't, then you're very much naive, or blinded by ideology.
And when the hell did I ever say that rights were only for people I like? I'm just saying that people - whoever they are - should think before opening their mouths. What's possibly wrong with practicing a little responsibility with freedom? But I don't ever recall saying that such persons shouldn't be allowed to say whatever they want.
And who knows, maybe there is a radical element in that mosque that inspired the shooters - though more likely, they were encouraged by ISIS on line. That doesn't mean that every member of that community of Muslims is guilty.


Please don't post personal attacks.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,241
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

31 May 2015, 2:49 pm

Booyakasha wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
luan78zao wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
And yes, the shooters in Texas had worshiped at that particular Arizona mosque, but that hardly makes everyone else worshiping there guilty of their crimes.


If Christian radicals were going around murdering people in the name of Jesus, you better believe the church they attended would attract protests and other attention. Who taught that pair that violence was the appropriate response to blasphemy?


Quote:
But that still doesn't mean that there was ever any sort of moral equivalency between them and racist bigots. That would be like saying there's a moral equivalency between the fire fighter and the arsonist.


What racist bigots? Islam is not a race, it is an ideology. One may be vehemently opposed to Islam and be neither a racist nor a bigot.

Your analogy is inapt. Individual rights aren't just for the people you like. As far as I am concerned those who defend individual rights stand on one side; those who violate rights, and their apologists, stand on the other.


Do you really think those bigots don't associate brown skin with the Islamic religion? If you don't, then you're very much naive, or blinded by ideology.
And when the hell did I ever say that rights were only for people I like? I'm just saying that people - whoever they are - should think before opening their mouths. What's possibly wrong with practicing a little responsibility with freedom? But I don't ever recall saying that such persons shouldn't be allowed to say whatever they want.
And who knows, maybe there is a radical element in that mosque that inspired the shooters - though more likely, they were encouraged by ISIS on line. That doesn't mean that every member of that community of Muslims is guilty.


Please don't post personal attacks.


Forgive me, O' moderator; I sometimes allow myself to become incensed.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,878
Location: London

01 Jun 2015, 5:00 am

luan78zao wrote:
Has there been a huge moderate Muslim anti-violence backlash which I've missed somehow?

Yes, constantly.

I try to assume good faith, but this statement is pretty much on par with saying "have there been any high-profile incidents of Muslims committing acts of violence and terrorism in the past 15 years?". You have Google, and even the mainstream press seems to be coming around to printing Islamic rejections of violence every time there's an incident (Charlie Hebdo in particular saw a lot of denunciations getting media attention).

Some compilations:
http://mediamatters.org/research/2014/0 ... c-s/200498
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/01/11 ... ext/202088
http://www.alternet.org/media/45-exampl ... ews-missed
http://islam.about.com/cs/currentevents ... ements.htm
http://www.muhajabah.com/otherscondemn.php

Hell, even these crazy anti-FOS extremists condemned the Charlie Hebdo massacre whilst peacefully protesting the cartoons they published: http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/02/ ... VE20150208 - if extremists are criticising violence, do you really think it has support from the moderate majority?