(05-03-2015 11:38 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(05-03-2015 11:18 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  So far, CNN isn't treating the shooters as victims. I'm sure that won't last long.

They are gradually starting to blame the event organizers.

The event organizers should shoulder some major criticism for the event itself, it was tasteless, intentionally offensive, and we as a nation are better than that. But they have no fault in the violent actions of others. None.

Tasteless and intentionally offensive - just like a couple of lesbians ordering Christian bakery wedding cakes.

It's accepted behavior.

(05-03-2015 11:20 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(05-03-2015 11:10 PM)I45owl Wrote:  

(05-03-2015 10:55 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  She's a U.S. citizen, right? Has a right to be there? Conduct an art exhibit?!?

Yes. Yes. Yes, if she wishes to do so, but that's not why she was here. Let's not pretend this is about art... It's about provocation and an expression of hatred. What she is doing is more similar to KKK or Nazi activity than it is to art.

Of course, she's still an idiot, but that has nothing to do with whether she has those rights. She does.

Of course it wasn't about art. But she's exposed these terrorists for who they are and now......they gon'!. So good on her, she drew them out before many more were injured or killed by these a-holes.

Oh, and pro-tip- When you go to KKK and Nazi's it's probably well past time to give this one up. Just a friendly.

By exposed, you mean "provoked people to bring a stockpile of weapons with intent to kill", thereby putting a lot of people at risk. It was an accident that there were not a lot of people trying to raise funds for cancer research in the immediate area at an all night event the night before this incident.

But, hey, she did something inconsequential in the long run - thankfully only one person who was incident suffered any harm. So, let's celebrate idiocy.

(05-03-2015 11:16 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(05-03-2015 10:43 PM)I45owl Wrote:  

(05-03-2015 10:18 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  Why would an art display, in the United States of America, no less, put ANYONE at risk?

Ask Muhammed. Ask Allah. And, ask a Muslim. If you're bold, ask a Muslim while holding a picture of Muhammed. If you're really bold, do so in Raqqa, Syria. But, make sure your will is in order first.

Why should it? In a sane world, with sane neighbors, it would not. Unfortunately, that's not what America is, in reality.

(05-03-2015 10:18 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  Risk from whom, exactly? Those modern Catholics you mention? Southern Baptists? The ELCA's? Why would we expect, or excuse, this group to react any differently than these others? Are they not capable of "turning the other cheek" as the rest of us are?

You brought up piss christ - that's where the reference to modern Catholics comes from (though I guess I was conflating memories of it and "The Last Temptation of Christ", which I recall upsetting Catholics more than anyone).

I am not aware of any dogma except Islamic dogma that compels its followers to do this.

Turn this around. Make your list of who's to blame for this situation, if you like. I probably won't have any objection to it so long as it includes Geller, and I don't really care whether she's first or last.

(05-03-2015 10:18 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  Should we simply give them their own set of rules, laws and expectations of civilized "co-existence"?

Absolutely not. But, the reality is that they follow their own set of rules, no matter what you or I have to say about it. And, they view those laws as superior to US law, no matter what you or I have to say about it. As long as there is no real conflict between the two sets of rules and no provocation like what happened today, there is generally an expectation or civilized co-existence, and that's what happens most days. It's sad, pathetic, evil, etc. that a fit of idiocy changes thing to the contrary.

I am not excusing anything, just providing an observation. You can make honor killings illegal. That doesn't mean that it will stop it from happening if someone is intent on doing so.

(05-03-2015 10:18 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  Sure. Do that. Give them your sympathies and understanding, see where that lands us. Good grief.

The evil people that perpetrated this have none of my sympathy. You are getting yourself worked up over the delusion that I have provided it.

I have provided observations here. I have also called Geller an idiot that put a lot of people at risk. I will not back down from that.

Those appeared to be some of the more convoluted doublespeak responses I've seen in a while.

Doublespeak? I've criticized Geller for provoking violence, with violence as the absolutely predictable outcome in this case.

It is my observation that Islamists are firmly entrenched in North Texas, with well-documented ties to numerous terrorist organizations. That is why North Texas was one of the sites ... and one of many ... chosen for the Stand with Mohammed campaign.

I have no feelings of sympathy for Islamists, have condemned them as evil, and somehow this is doublespeak?

The gunmen are evil, Geller is still an idiot.

(05-03-2015 11:39 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(05-03-2015 11:27 PM)gobluebigjon Wrote:  

(05-03-2015 11:12 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(05-03-2015 11:03 PM)gobluebigjon Wrote:  Just because you can provoke stupid people doesn't mean you should.

Maybe the government should appoint a czar to tell us all what might provoke stupid people and let's us know what we can and cannot say

Or

Maybe we should protect free speech and allow people to express themselves and when someone shows up and opens fire because they don't agree they die. Now if they show up with signs and chant and protest. We protect them. If they show up with weapons and open fire. They die



I will go with the second scenerio

Are you serious? Why does it have to be an either or scenario?
I am not saying they have no right to do this, of course they do. Do you go out of your way to offend stupid people? I would assume you waste a lot of your time if you do, more power to you.
Sorry, I have better things to do with my time than to go out of my way in an obvious attempt to piss stupid people off.

It's pretty easy to piss off stupid people it takes little effort. You are all good until stupid people try to kill you because they don't agree with the better things that you do with your time.

It's a waste of the little effort it takes, it makes no sense to do it intentionally.

(05-03-2015 11:40 PM)Claw Wrote:  

(05-03-2015 11:38 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(05-03-2015 11:18 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  So far, CNN isn't treating the shooters as victims. I'm sure that won't last long.

They are gradually starting to blame the event organizers.

The event organizers should shoulder some major criticism for the event itself, it was tasteless, intentionally offensive, and we as a nation are better than that. But they have no fault in the violent actions of others. None.

Tasteless and intentionally offensive - just like a couple of lesbians ordering Christian bakery wedding cakes.

It's accepted behavior.

What does that have to do with anything in this thread? Honestly, are you incapable of staying on topic?

(05-03-2015 11:42 PM)gobluebigjon Wrote:  

(05-03-2015 11:39 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(05-03-2015 11:27 PM)gobluebigjon Wrote:  

(05-03-2015 11:12 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(05-03-2015 11:03 PM)gobluebigjon Wrote:  Just because you can provoke stupid people doesn't mean you should.

Maybe the government should appoint a czar to tell us all what might provoke stupid people and let's us know what we can and cannot say

Or

Maybe we should protect free speech and allow people to express themselves and when someone shows up and opens fire because they don't agree they die. Now if they show up with signs and chant and protest. We protect them. If they show up with weapons and open fire. They die



I will go with the second scenerio

Are you serious? Why does it have to be an either or scenario?
I am not saying they have no right to do this, of course they do. Do you go out of your way to offend stupid people? I would assume you waste a lot of your time if you do, more power to you.
Sorry, I have better things to do with my time than to go out of my way in an obvious attempt to piss stupid people off.

It's pretty easy to piss off stupid people it takes little effort. You are all good until stupid people try to kill you because they don't agree with the better things that you do with your time.

It's a waste of the little effort it takes, it makes no sense to do it intentionally.

And you have every right to say snd think so safely...see how that works

Freedom is pretty cool

(05-03-2015 11:42 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(05-03-2015 11:40 PM)Claw Wrote:  

(05-03-2015 11:38 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(05-03-2015 11:18 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  So far, CNN isn't treating the shooters as victims. I'm sure that won't last long.

They are gradually starting to blame the event organizers.

The event organizers should shoulder some major criticism for the event itself, it was tasteless, intentionally offensive, and we as a nation are better than that. But they have no fault in the violent actions of others. None.

Tasteless and intentionally offensive - just like a couple of lesbians ordering Christian bakery wedding cakes.

It's accepted behavior.

What does that have to do with anything in this thread? Honestly, are you incapable of staying on topic?

Tasteless and intentionally offensive were your words. I don't find this event anymore tasteless and offensive than the wedding cake incidents. Both are political statements. Both are tasteless and intentionally offensive. It is accepted political speech.

Link:
Mapplethorpe battle changed Art world
Sunday, May 21, 2000
Cincinnati Enquirer

Don't recall any murders or attempted murders, guns or shootings, though the many, many people were just as outraged at this "irresponsible" exhibit. The organizers were cannonized and praised by many on the left as freedom lovers. (I cannot find any references, and don't recall anyone on the right feeling the same about it.) The message from the media and the exhibitors was: "the show must go on, this is America, anyone who doesn't like it doesn't have to go see it, they can ignore it."

Now that the shoe's on the other foot, the same laws and rules should apply. Why can't the crazy cultists just ignore what they don't like the very same way everyone else is made to? That's the difference, and why they must be stopped. More exhibits; more drawings and drawing contests. Let the National Endowment for the Arts sponsor it with our tax dollars. I'll support that one.

(05-03-2015 11:45 PM)Claw Wrote:  

(05-03-2015 11:42 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(05-03-2015 11:40 PM)Claw Wrote:  

(05-03-2015 11:38 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(05-03-2015 11:18 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  So far, CNN isn't treating the shooters as victims. I'm sure that won't last long.

They are gradually starting to blame the event organizers.

The event organizers should shoulder some major criticism for the event itself, it was tasteless, intentionally offensive, and we as a nation are better than that. But they have no fault in the violent actions of others. None.

Tasteless and intentionally offensive - just like a couple of lesbians ordering Christian bakery wedding cakes.

It's accepted behavior.

What does that have to do with anything in this thread? Honestly, are you incapable of staying on topic?

Tasteless and intentionally offensive were your words. I don't find this event anymore tasteless and offensive than the wedding cake incidents. Both are political statements. Both are tasteless and intentionally offensive. It is accepted political speech.

I'm not claiming it isn't accepted political speech, so what is this post? Just an excuse to insert homosexuality into another thread where it has no logical place?

(05-03-2015 11:34 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  I made no such comparison,

Apologies for the misattribution.

(05-03-2015 11:34 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  ...while I agree with everything you said about Geller, but you're wrong about the blame. She didn't provoke anyone to violence, she simply provoked them. They chose to turn to violence, and while her actions are purposefully offensive, in no way, shape, or form can you blame art, words, or speech for violent actions. It's just not how it works, and you're going to far with your attempt to blame her for this.

When someone's position of violence is pretty clear on the response to certain acts, it should be clear that she was provoking them to violence.

If not for Pamela Geller's actions, this would not have happened. If this were not a predictable outcome, Garland police would not have been on site in numbers.

She had her "I hate Islam" event. No-one worth a **** died. I feel sorry for the police officer that has to suffer for her idiocy. I suppose she is happy with herself, and others appear to be happy with her as well. I am not.

By the way, for all of the sanctimonious bull**** about this event being about "freedom of speech". Here are some signs from the counter-protest organized by the exact same people that organized the May 3, "I hate Islam" event. Charlie Hebdo, and the incidents around it, was an exercise in free speech. Geller's protest three months ago did not put a premium on free speech.

(05-03-2015 11:27 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(05-03-2015 11:18 PM)usmbacker Wrote:  Where is all this outrage when Jesus and Holy Mother Mary are pictured in urine or in elephant dung? This is a free country that allows those to be exhibited is what Christians were told. So now the libs on this site are outraged over the Muhammad cartoon contest. Libs love Muslims and hate Christians. This is just further proof.

Oh go f*ck yourself you nitwit,

Just guessing here, but feel pretty strong that is against the AUP.

Quote:When someone's position of violence is pretty clear on the response to certain acts, it should be clear that she was provoking them to violence.

This isn't acceptable in our society, and has no basis morally or legally. That someone, or a group, has reacted violently to previous legal expressions of free speech does not somehow make an expression of free speech a provocation of violence. It doesn't matter if it's an intentionally offensive painting of muhammed or civil rights protesters in Birmingham in the 60's, claiming a provocation of violence by nonviolent acts just cannot be accepted. I'm sorry, I understand your point fully, but you're simply wrong here.

Quote:If not for Pamela Geller's actions, this would not have happened. If this were not a predictable outcome, Garland police would not have been on site in numbers.

If not for thousands of things, this would not have happened, none of that matters though. The choice to act violently was theirs, and theirs alone. I agree that we shouldn't go out of our way to be offensive for offensives sake, but that in no way puts any blame on offensive speech for violent actions.

Quote:She had her "I hate Islam" event. No-one worth a **** died. I feel sorry for the police officer that has to suffer for her idiocy. I suppose she is happy with herself, and others appear to be happy with her as well. I am not.

You and I agree here 100%. She is a terrible person who, unfortunately, probably gets more positive attention than she should.

(05-04-2015 12:18 AM)usmbacker Wrote:  

(05-03-2015 11:27 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(05-03-2015 11:18 PM)usmbacker Wrote:  Where is all this outrage when Jesus and Holy Mother Mary are pictured in urine or in elephant dung? This is a free country that allows those to be exhibited is what Christians were told. So now the libs on this site are outraged over the Muhammad cartoon contest. Libs love Muslims and hate Christians. This is just further proof.

Oh go f*ck yourself you nitwit,

Just guessing here, but feel pretty strong that is against the AUP.

Doubtful, you're objectively a nitwit and masturbation is quite healthy.

I can't wait to see how Obama will manage to spin this one as not being an act of terrorism.

(05-04-2015 12:04 AM)I45owl Wrote:  

(05-03-2015 11:34 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  ...while I agree with everything you said about Geller, but you're wrong about the blame. She didn't provoke anyone to violence, she simply provoked them. They chose to turn to violence, and while her actions are purposefully offensive, in no way, shape, or form can you blame art, words, or speech for violent actions. It's just not how it works, and you're going to far with your attempt to blame her for this.

When someone's position of violence is pretty clear on the response to certain acts, it should be clear that she was provoking them to violence.

If not for Pamela Geller's actions, this would not have happened. If this were not a predictable outcome, Garland police would not have been on site in numbers.

She had her "I hate Islam" event. No-one worth a **** died. I feel sorry for the police officer that has to suffer for her idiocy. I suppose she is happy with herself, and others appear to be happy with her as well. I am not.

You are equating drawing a cartoon picture with shooting a gun at someone. The two are just not even in the same category. Drawing a picture that someone doesn't like might reasonably be construed to provoke a response like an editorial in the newspaper, a guest appearance to draw attention to a differing point of view on a talk show, a peaceful gathering of protestors with their own signs at a safe distance from the event. Those are all rational and acceptable responses. Irrational responses are shooting or threats to shoot. Those have no place and zero defensibility in our country, and in much of the civilized world.

The very fact that a few cartoon drawings, done on American soil in an American State, are seen by you as "predictably provoking violent response" is the part I take issue with, as it clearly demonstrates that these crazy people are not capable of respecting the kind of law and order our and most other civilized societies are founded upon. We are not talking about Syria, as you suggested in earlier posts. We are talking about the United States of America, which has laws and rules to govern this that were willfully ignored by the cultist shooters. That's the problem, not a few drawings by some artists, no matter who funded them or set them up.

I don't think it was predictable at all, not in The United States in Texas. I think it is a sad state of the truth of this crazy cult, their irrational dogma and worthless, hollow idols.

Although a show like "South Park" can satirize and make fun of something I believe in, I'm smart enough to know it's nothing to get upset about.

(05-04-2015 12:21 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(05-04-2015 12:18 AM)usmbacker Wrote:  

(05-03-2015 11:27 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(05-03-2015 11:18 PM)usmbacker Wrote:  Where is all this outrage when Jesus and Holy Mother Mary are pictured in urine or in elephant dung? This is a free country that allows those to be exhibited is what Christians were told. So now the libs on this site are outraged over the Muhammad cartoon contest. Libs love Muslims and hate Christians. This is just further proof.

Oh go f*ck yourself you nitwit,

Just guessing here, but feel pretty strong that is against the AUP.

Doubtful, you're objectively a nitwit and masturbation is quite healthy.

Well, you will find out soon.

(05-04-2015 12:21 AM)john01992 Wrote:  I can't wait to see how Obama will manage to spin this one as not being an act of terrorism.

He will call it a justified peaceful protest. He will say the evil police overreacted. Just two misguided youths letting off some steam with their guns.

(05-04-2015 12:19 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

Quote:When someone's position of violence is pretty clear on the response to certain acts, it should be clear that she was provoking them to violence.

This isn't acceptable in our society, and has no basis morally or legally. That someone, or a group, has reacted violently to previous legal expressions of free speech does not somehow make an expression of free speech a provocation of violence. It doesn't matter if it's an intentionally offensive painting of muhammed or civil rights protesters in Birmingham in the 60's, claiming a provocation of violence by nonviolent acts just cannot be accepted.

Of course it's not acceptable and has no moral or legal basis. It does have a religious and dogmatic basis.

Your analogy to Birmingham is terrible... in fact, I can't think any analogy that would be appropriate here outside of some obscure, insignificant, cult that holds dogma that inspires murderous acts (and adherents that view that dogma as valid). It just happens that there is a prominent dogmatic belief system that does hold such beliefs.

(05-04-2015 12:34 AM)I45owl Wrote:  

(05-04-2015 12:19 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

Quote:When someone's position of violence is pretty clear on the response to certain acts, it should be clear that she was provoking them to violence.

This isn't acceptable in our society, and has no basis morally or legally. That someone, or a group, has reacted violently to previous legal expressions of free speech does not somehow make an expression of free speech a provocation of violence. It doesn't matter if it's an intentionally offensive painting of muhammed or civil rights protesters in Birmingham in the 60's, claiming a provocation of violence by nonviolent acts just cannot be accepted.

Of course it's not acceptable and has no moral or legal basis. It does have a religious and dogmatic basis.

Your analogy to Birmingham is terrible... in fact, I can't think any analogy that would be appropriate here outside of some obscure, insignificant, cult that holds dogma that inspires murderous acts (and adherents that view that dogma as valid). It just happens that there is a prominent dogmatic belief system that does hold such beliefs.

The analogy was fine, you just think this is somehow different for some reason.