Last edited Tue May 5, 2015, 12:00 AM - Edit history (1)

Two western countries have two private groups that depict Mohamad in a way that offends, and people die

The difference is the two western countries believe in freedom of expression, most countries in the Middle East do not

go figure.

It must be because those Iraqi's don't believe in "freedom of expression".

The calamitous GW war can't be a blanket excuse for everything.

Antisemitic comments (and cartoons) are ubiquitous in the muslim world.

And predate GW's asinine war.

About Iran and lack of freedom of expression in western verses middle eastern countries

because of Piss Christ? christians are out of control, but they haven't got to the same level of crazy Muslims have- yet

to extremist Chirstians as radical Christians

Like they used to.

In America?

That seems untrue.

It wasn't that long ago when they had hopes that they could have the state execute gay people per biblical law.

....much as they would like it to be.

fatwas if they don't like freedom of expression

Question: does this constitute hate speech?

on his life that an entire country put a death sentence on him.

yet, we feel that cartoons should be avoided not to hurt radical feelings.

I also don't think a bunch of racists getting together to make racist cartoons is heroic.

with death.

It was right after the revolution.

Iran was the first Islamic State and probably will be the last because the young people know there's more to life than the nonsense their parents know.

has the fatwa been lifted on Rushdie today? is today close enough for you.

the revolution was in 1979. the fatwa against rusdie I believe in the late 80s. that is no excuse and saying it is is very troubling to hear.

you actually think a man sentenced to death is proud of it? also interesting how you didn't mention the villians who imposed the death sentence.

this conversation is a waste of time.

You aren't being especially coherent.

btw - has it been lifted today?

terrorists.

if you think that's nonsense that pretty much sums up everything i need to know about you.

has to live in fear for writing a fictional story.

You are making distinctions based on thought crime. The intentions you attribute to people.

Let's stick to facts: caricature is one form of criticism of ideologies, religions included.

There are no if's and but's, attacking criticism (in caricature or other form) with assault rifles is a no-no.

Unless we decide opinion differences can be settled at gun point.

a dumb birither.

On touche le fond. (We have hit rock bottom)

Then it's OK to target a drone half a world away.

The targets of US drones are terrorists who want to impose an obscurantist ideology on their populations by armed means. There were elections in Afghanistan recently. Were the Talibans elected? Boko Haram abducts pre-teen girls and forcibly marries them. Should the US refuse assistance to the government of Nigeria which requested such help? Are you saying people in the West should let Iraqi incompetence allow for the spread of ISIS?

Terrorists targeted by drones are not presenting an ideology to the masses, they enforce it by the gun.
And you blame the drones.

The attackers of the Garland meeting were attacking with guns people making ideological cartoons.
And you blame the cartoonists.

Is the pattern that you always favor the party wielding assault rifles/

I made one point and one only (therefore, not a Gish Gallop): that you manage to always find mitigating circumstances for the people who are violently intolerant.

* terrorists in muslim countries? Oh, but we shouldn't send drones on the poor darlings
* gun attack on cartoonists in Texas? Oh, but Geller is a provocative firebrand

The same principle is at work in both cases; the faulty equation Democrat=for the underprivileged=for the underdog no matter what=islamist terrorists can't ba all bad and it's our fault because Iraq.

The fact ISIS, the Taliban or Boko Haram do not have fighter jets does not make them cuddly little underdogs worthy of compassion. They are nuts who chop heads off or stone people to death for imaginary crimes.

Which I summed up by my affirmation that your moral relativism is stunning.

Got it?

It's pretty obvious that you're only here to spew out all the talking points you can, as quickly as you can, without much rhyme or reason, and certainly without any actual response to the people you are replying to.

Whatever your argument is - and you're so all over the place that I don't know if you have one - your methods are doing you no favors.

I wish you could prove how my arguments are so 'all over the place'

This conveniently allows you to obscure my point about delrem's moral relavitism.

He mentioned the drones attack on terrorist to mitigate the blame on the Garland, Texas shooters.

Then you jump in with ad hominems and other Gish Gallops.

your methods are doing you no favors.

It is an argument based upon an irrelevant personal characteristic of the speaker in an effort to discredit their argument.

Gratuitous, by the way, also has a meaning. I'm sure you can look it up yourself.

At any rate, you came up with a bunch of stuff directed at me, not delrem, based on my linking you to the rationalwiki article. and apparently now you think you can use the term I showed you and"win."

Are you actually trying to accomplish something through this?

Your argumentation is a kind of spiral in the air. Can you land the plane of your rhetoric?

• I made a post saying that whatever Geller's motives were, she had a legitimate right to attack an ideology as she saw fit, here with cartoons, and that the attackers were not morally justified.
• delrem answered to me, implying US drones in some way blunted moral claims by Americans about muslims. And I called that astounding moral relativism.

Up to that point, it was a logical ediscussion. Then you jump in with your gish gallop.
It was an ad hominem as it was levelled at my way of debating.
It was gratuitous in that the previous conversation followed a logical flow.

Then you carry on about me and further away from the original point. Hence the spiral in the air.
Are you actually trying to accomplish something through this?

never in any logical way, but always in the sort of way where you are going "yeahbutwhatabout." You are all over the place, and the only commonalities in anything you say, is that it never addresses the poste you are responding to, and is always obsessed with "The Muslims." And it leads you to attack people whose only input on the thread is posting a link, making all sorts of claims about my "moral relativism."

I am suggesting that you find a more coherent way to express your point than your current course of flibbertyjibbery garbage.

Gotta love it. In your convoluted way, you tried to make two strange 'points':

1/ in an exchange between delrem and me (he injecting drones into the Garland shooting), you jump in with an ad hominem (the Gish gallop). Your further comments all center about me and not the issue. So, yes, I know the definition of an ad hominem. and your comments to me illustrate what it is. Since your comments are unrelated to the discussion but focused on me, I can only make the hypothesis you chose this thread to express your opinion of my posts in general. If so, it's done in a foggy and unsubstantiated way.

2/ your post title "Your way of "debating" has taken you from Texas to Tehran" neatly shows how illogical you are. This thread is about the Garland shooting. Garland is in Texas. delrem, not me, injected into the discussion the drones (=notably, Iraq). Iran was injected by yet another participant who mentioned the Iranian festival of cartoons denying the Holocaust. The evocation of foreign issues (drones, Iran) was not initiated by me, a point that obviously eluded you. No wonder you thought you could stick your 'Gish gallop' on me.

Do try to follow the discussion before lecturing people, me here.

the others are left ignored.

and she orchestrated this pretty brilliantly, imo.

There are huge differences between these incidents and satire really may be the difference. What Geller is doing is not satire. It is purposeful incitement. She wants a war. She wants blood in the streets.

CH never wanted those things at all.

That's the definition of stupid.

That's not really the same as being a birther. It's much worse.

I guess you can consider all this stupid, but I think when you call someone stupid, you might let your guard down.

It's an easy dismissal, but not always the best idea.

wipe out a huge portion of the world because of what they believe.

Just don't dismiss her as being stupid. There are lots of stupid people and none of them could pull this off.

She warrants attention.

Go ahead. Try. Let me know how it works out.

All I am saying is you can dismiss her as "stupid" just as one would on a grade school playground, but you do so at your own peril.

A bunch of racists isn't going to get the support of those who fought against racism.

Gellar is a horrible person overall, of course.

Having said, it's insane that either would face a violent backlash for their juvenile tactics.

It is called a joke and I hope that is some small way it offended someone.

Both are protected speech in the US.

for one thing

That's a big ole difference.

I just hope they don't worship Yog Sothoth.

She is a sick and disgusting person

meaning that for every time that they satirized Muslims, they satirized Catholics more than twice as much - satire such as cartoons of priests raping little boy angels. And, there were ZERO Catholics (in a traditionally Catholic but today Secular nation) that pulled out their kamikazes to go to work defending their faith against these cartoons.

Then there is the intelligence, integrity, and refinement of their Charlie Hebdo editorial staff, and so many other differences


This statistic was studied and quantified by French journalists after the January attacks, the source is "Marianne". I don't have a link, sorry (if you read French).

On edit: I understand that we are agreeing on the stupidity of the Texas incident.

I would bet some of them were satire and others doing their best to be offensive. But how can anyone say they were one or the other without having, you know, looked at them?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Birds are territorial creatures.
The lyrics to the songbird's melodious trill go something like this:
"Stay out of my territory or I'll PECK YOUR GODDAMNED EYES OUT!"[/center][/font][hr]

It doesn't matter to me at all if Geller et al were "trying to be offensive". That does not justify violence.

how the 1st Amendment doesn't protect blasphemy.

It's enough to make me want to check out of DU for the week, this sort of shit. Gives me a headache.

I agree there is no justification for violence in regards to imagery, whether it's designed to be satire or offensive. But this is what Geller wanted. I think you can blame the shooters for being shooters and still see Geller as inviting them. Hopefully other communities will see her and her entourage as too toxic to host.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]

Do you have a quote/link?

Speaking with Suzanne Nossel, the executive director of PEN American Center, the Charlie Hebdo pair stressed that their job was to start a global debate while those hosting the Garland show simply aimed to provoke.

I think the CH people are distancing themselves from PG for other reasons.

is a matter of opinion. It is also irrelevant. Apologizing for violence against speech is, to me, at least as offensive as the crap Geller has said. However, in no way would that justify shooting the apologists for violence against speech.

I'm saying it was inevitable, given Geller's desire to see violence perpetrated. This is what she wanted. She got what she wanted. Is she to blame for the shooters? No. But I would certainly never want her anywhere near me or mine.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]

Be aware that this is a right wing website:

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/05/the_muhammad_cartoon_that_won_the_draw_muhammad_contest.html

It's strange that Charlie Hebdo reflexively came out and said there was no satire at the contest.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]

That's far closer to traditional satire than anything Charlie Hebdo did (at least based on what I've seen).

Could just be more satire from Charlie Hebdo