kelsay2sackseason Posted May 4, 2015 Share Posted May 4, 2015 like sam harris says, the moment someone asks " well were those cartoons offensive?" you have lost the debate.... people are being murdered because of cartoons, end of ethical argument. so sick of religion in general, these are just books people. wtf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted May 4, 2015 Share Posted May 4, 2015 (edited) A little time last night was spent following the story, and the one thing I sadly learned is that people on the left believe in free speech up until they decide that someone is getting their feelings hurt, at which point you've taken free speech too far and deserve to have radical Islamists come to kill you. Edited May 4, 2015 by LABillzFan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted May 4, 2015 Share Posted May 4, 2015 people are being murdered because of cartoons, end of ethical argument. Wrong. People tried to commit murder because of intolerance. They were stopped. Cartoons do not kill people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kelsay2sackseason Posted May 4, 2015 Author Share Posted May 4, 2015 Wrong. People tried to commit murder because of intolerance. They were stopped. Cartoons do not kill people. isnt this a different way of saying the same thing, i agree. idc how offensive a show or cartoon is, i dont want to hear it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TH3 Posted May 4, 2015 Share Posted May 4, 2015 Problem is - the Islamic faction doesn't live by our rules - they have their own - so if you want to have a Texas style color by numbers contest to stress your American style freedom - don't be surprised when they shoot you. They have their own constitution - the Koran - they don't care if they die in the process - they answer to their concept of a maker - not to 1776. Not sure this is a liberal/conservative issue. I believe in freedom of speech - but I am not going to publicly draw the prophet it means that I might get shot by people who don't have the same belief in freedom of speech. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 4, 2015 Share Posted May 4, 2015 What, the dumbasses couldn't think of trying this in Rhode Island or Illinois or something? In a shooting match between Islamic radicals and Texas, I'm betting on Texas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted May 4, 2015 Share Posted May 4, 2015 Certainly this group out of Texas intentions are that of an inflammatory nature, but without doubt there is no reasonable justification for these religious islama nuts to attempt to shoot up people because they were offended. What, the dumbasses couldn't think of trying this in Rhode Island or Illinois or something? In a shooting match between Islamic radicals and Texas, I'm betting on Texas. It's as if they were baiting them to come. Dem Boy'z in Texas don't mess a round Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted May 4, 2015 Share Posted May 4, 2015 All for freedom of speech but this particular event seems like a stupid use of spare time without much upside. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted May 4, 2015 Share Posted May 4, 2015 All for freedom of speech but this particular event seems like a stupid use of spare time without much upside. You mean like posting on ppp? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted May 4, 2015 Share Posted May 4, 2015 Problem is - the Islamic faction doesn't live by our rules - they have their own - so if you want to have a Texas style color by numbers contest to stress your American style freedom - don't be surprised when they shoot you. They have their own constitution - the Koran - they don't care if they die in the process - they answer to their concept of a maker - not to 1776. Not sure this is a liberal/conservative issue. I believe in freedom of speech - but I am not going to publicly draw the prophet it means that I might get shot by people who don't have the same belief in freedom of speech. They can always return to Mecca and stay there if they're upset with the laws of the land that's taken them in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted May 4, 2015 Share Posted May 4, 2015 like sam harris says, the moment someone asks " well were those cartoons offensive?" you have lost the debate.... people are being murdered because of cartoons, end of ethical argument. so sick of religion in general, these are just books people. wtf Why do all these atheists worship this dumb dork named Sam Harris? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted May 4, 2015 Share Posted May 4, 2015 SHE SHOULDN’T HAVE WORN THAT SHORT DRESS: Noah Rothman on the toxic implication that Pamela Geller had last night’s terror attack in Texas coming. NICK GILLESPIE: Free Speech: Never Give In To The Thug’s Veto. “The future must belong to those who recognize a categorical difference between free expression and violent reprisals. The future must belong to those who affirm speech over silence and freedom over fear, regardless of who is speaking and who is offended.” Meanwhile, Stephen Green notes that the New York Times’ Liam Stack tries to make it sound like Pam Geller is the crazy one — not the Muslim terrorists who wanted to shoot up her art show. Or course, as someone noted last night, it’s Texas, so even the art shows will probably have you outgunned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 4, 2015 Share Posted May 4, 2015 I wonder what they do if someone burns a translated Koran? Because according to doctrine, it's not the Koran if it's not in Arabic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted May 4, 2015 Share Posted May 4, 2015 Is that Beerboy trying to do a break dance? How the heck did that win? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted May 4, 2015 Share Posted May 4, 2015 but I am not going to publicly draw the prophet it means that I might get shot by people who don't have the same belief in freedom of speech. You're not going to, but someone always will. Always. Whether they're drawing Muhammad as a butch lesbian or Christ with piss all over him, someone will always stretch the boundaries of free speech, and the question is not whether you agree with them, but rather would you be willing to fight to protect that right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 4, 2015 Share Posted May 4, 2015 SHE SHOULDN’T HAVE WORN THAT SHORT DRESS: Noah Rothman on the toxic implication that Pamela Geller had last night’s terror attack in Texas coming. NICK GILLESPIE: Free Speech: Never Give In To The Thug’s Veto. “The future must belong to those who recognize a categorical difference between free expression and violent reprisals. The future must belong to those who affirm speech over silence and freedom over fear, regardless of who is speaking and who is offended.” Meanwhile, Stephen Green notes that the New York Times’ Liam Stack tries to make it sound like Pam Geller is the crazy one — not the Muslim terrorists who wanted to shoot up her art show. Or course, as someone noted last night, it’s Texas, so even the art shows will probably have you outgunned. "Free speech aside, why would anyone do something as provocative as hosting a "Muhammad drawing contest"?" And I think of all the provocative anti-Christian and anti-Judaism art that we "must" support "because it's art." Hell, "Civil Rights aside, why would anyone do something as provocative as running from the police?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted May 4, 2015 Share Posted May 4, 2015 SHE SHOULDN’T HAVE WORN THAT SHORT DRESS: Noah Rothman on the toxic implication that Pamela Geller had last night’s terror attack in Texas coming. That's pretty embarrassing. It's been a while since the left has been so twisted in their own logic, but they so hate people who don't agree with them that they'll defend terrorists just to save face. Why weren't these people using the same support of the the terrorists when they killed everyone at Charlie Hedbo? I mean, Hedbo made a living at mocking Muhammed. According to liberal logic, the people at Hedbo were asking for it, too, no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TH3 Posted May 4, 2015 Share Posted May 4, 2015 They can always return to Mecca and stay there if they're upset with the laws of the land that's taken them in. True...but your trying to reason with people who don't.... You're not going to, but someone always will. Always. Whether they're drawing Muhammad as a butch lesbian or Christ with piss all over him, someone will always stretch the boundaries of free speech, and the question is not whether you agree with them, but rather would you be willing to fight to protect that right? Willing to fight? Your missing the point...fight where - with what - am I going to fight for my right to draw the prophet Mohammed by baiting hardcore Islamic's with a contest - knowing that there is a likelihood that they are going to show up with guns....ummm I have better things to do....BTW - these people were hardly "fighting" for their right - that battle has been won with guns and blood in the past so we don't have to do that now - this lady who runs the coloring club is clearly looking for a fight... No - I am not going to put my life on the line for a bunch of xenophobic clowns who clearly have too much time on their hands Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted May 4, 2015 Share Posted May 4, 2015 NYT "reporter" Rukmini Callimachi ✔ @rcallimachi Free speech aside, why would anyone do something as provocative as hosting a "Muhammad drawing contest"? Because of free speech, which can't be set aside. Freedom of speech exists precisely to protect provocative speech. Innocuous speech doesn't NEED protection. Whatever you think about how offensive it is and whether it should or should not have occurred, the only thing that people should be saying today is that no one should have been shot for attending. Yet instead of condemning the shooters, most liberals are focused on condemning the fact that the event occurred. Rather than expecting that the American justice system should catch and punish those who would use violence and force against the peaceful exercise of Constitutional rights, liberals expect Americans to voluntarily forego the exercise of those rights in order to mollify the feelings of violent criminals. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted May 4, 2015 Share Posted May 4, 2015 True...but your trying to reason with people who don't.... Willing to fight? Your missing the point...fight where - with what - am I going to fight for my right to draw the prophet Mohammed by baiting hardcore Islamic's with a contest - knowing that there is a likelihood that they are going to show up with guns....ummm I have better things to do....BTW - these people were hardly "fighting" for their right - that battle has been won with guns and blood in the past so we don't have to do that now - this lady who runs the coloring club is clearly looking for a fight... No - I am not going to put my life on the line for a bunch of xenophobic clowns who clearly have too much time on their hands Yeah, that's kinda what I figured. Should have known better than to expect anything different. I'm sure you're right. The lady running the coloring club was asking for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts