I pit the statement from the US Embassy in Cairo

The BBQ Pit
321

To what, the problem that there are currently lots of angry violent jerks in the world? Umm… not sure, outside the scope of this thread.

No one in this thread has proposed banning anything, as far as I can tell. I certainly have not and do not, and I am certain there’s no way you could possibly get that out of what I posted. What I posted had to do with people being ethically or morally responsible for their actions, NOT anything about legal responsibility and certainly nothing about censorship.

We talk about them all the time. But I think it’s a “it goes without saying” issue. Some guy with an RPG fired it and killed a US ambassador. We condemn that and think he should be arrested and tried and convicted and punished. I think that. You think that. All the liberals on the board think that. All the conservatives on the board think that. So no debate there. But, there’s also the question of a person who did something that they (again, we all agree) have the legal RIGHT to do, and SHOULD have the legal right to do, but which may or may not have incited the bad person mentioned previously into violence. What level of responsibility does that person have? How do we judge his actions? That is a question up for debate, and that’s why that’s the question we are in fact debating.

Quite the contrary… censoring your OWN speech is completely OK at all times, and is not “censorship” at all. The government censoring your speech is what is not OK. If you (generically, not accusing you of using such language) were going to use the phrase “sand nigger” and then realized that your new coworker is Muslim and chose not to do so out of politeness, then you’re “censoring” your own speech… and good for you!

322

Oh come on, now you’re just being silly. People, all people, take it personally when you insult people or things that are very important to them. Christians take it personally when you insult Jesus. Mormons take it personally when you insult Joseph Smith. Republicans take it personally when you insult Reagan. Heck, Yankees fans take it personally when you insult Derek Jeter.

No one should ever respond to insulting but non-immediately-threatening words with violence, PARTICULARLY violence directed at innocent unrelated people… but let’s not pretend that “oh, I was just insulting the founder of your religion who you hold to be sacred, not the religion itself, and not you personally…” is anything other than BS.

323

No I’m not being silly. I’m simply applying the same standards to religious figures that we apply to any other figure of prominence. I don’t care if random idiots take it personally when you insult their heroes. The question is SHOULD they take it personally.

324

That’s not the question at all. Human nature is what it is. It’s 100% predictable, and in fact completely understandable, that insulting Mohammed will be viewed as a personal insult by Muslims.

I repeat, it’s absolutely vile and unacceptable that some Muslims react to non-violent speech with violence, but any distinction you’re trying to draw here is ridiculously spurious.

325

Do you think the journalists releasing the pictures of Abu Ghraib abused their first amendment rights?

326

And that is precisely what I find despicable. Why should people modulate their behavior on the presumed reaction of homicidal maniacs?!? NO!!! Reacting homicidally to a film IS NOT HUMAN NATURE, you idiot!!!

327

What MaxTheVool said.

I’m a big fan of reason. I denounce those who riot over speech. I’m not too fond of those who call rioters “Homocidal”, because it makes it sound like we’re dealing with serial killers, when we’re actually observing a mob directed by thugs with a political agenda. It’s not just about the movie. Yeah this is a very liberal argument and I’ll sum it up for you: know thy enemy. High horses interfere with that practice.
And, yeah, Fundamentalist Islam has a problem with its edges. Insult Jesus in the West in a high profile manner and someone will suffer assault and vandalism. But since we live in a mature democracy with rule of law there will be outlets for excitable types and the situation won’t escalate to murder. Cite: Piss Christ: Seriöse Informationen und Themen - artcrimes.net |

328

Haven’t we got a dead abortion MD or two who might differ? And are our Aryan Nation nutjobs not claiming Christianity as their religion?

329

Were there riots in the street and the embassies of Islamic nations burned over the Christian girl in Pakistan who was framed?

No?

Kinda makes me wonder what their reaction would be if that happened. Probably something about “But this is our culture!”

330

No. You’re a big coward. I am a big fan of free speech. Murder done because of one’s opposition to the speech of another is an attack on everybody’s freedom. Look at how cowardly the media and some of you have reacted to this story. You’ve devoted more time blaming the filmmaker for the deaths than the actual murderers themselves. You have let these terrorists modulate your behavior. What next? Should we censure people who criticize Islam? Maybe terrorists might kill again if they get sufficiently offended? Are we now supposed to cower under the threat of homicidal maniacs? What cowardice! What nonsense!!

331

This could be a metaphor for this entire discussion. We have two different cultures that to a certain extent just don’t understand each other, and continue to evaluate the situation based on their own beliefs, which in spite of what they may think, are not universal and basic to humanity.

On one side, we have a culture that has enshrined free speech in its Constitution, that understands the nuances, and believes strongly that you must allow people to say anything, no matter how vile, disgusting and objectionable, because it is an absolute right. This is by no means a universal belief among humans, cultures, or governments. When it was written into the U.S. Constitution it was a radical concept, that had previously been extensively violated. Many non-Americans, and specifically people in the Middle East who live under an entirely different culture, with different customs, not only do not necessarily believe in free speech, but they do not necessarily even understand the concept. To expect them to be fully on board with free speech, when it is not part of their culture, is just talking past them.

On the other side, we have a culture that believes that their religion is sacred, and that to attack it in certain ways is a vicious criminal act, deserving of the strongest possible response and reprisals. Just because it seems silly to some Westerners to hold religion to this standard, and to react as if serious harm had been done by words and pictures, doesn’t mean that this isn’t what they believe. Again, to expect them to recognize the difference between attacking human lives and attacking sacred aspects of their religion, because it’s a distinction that we draw, when it may not be a distinction to them, is just talking past each other.

We have to adhere to our principles, just as they have to adhere to theirs. But each side expecting the other to adopt the “right” view, as if there is only one universal set of beliefs, is foolish. Some better communication, and a greater willingness to see things from the other side, might be the first step in coming up with a solution. Screaming past each other certainly isn’t going to do it.

332

I have zero sympathy for people who kill abortion doctors, but that’s a pretty poor analogy. People who oppose abortion beileve that abortion is the murder of innocent children. Killing someone who murders innocent children is hardly the same thing as killing someone who represents a country who had nothing personally to do with a film that was made in that country that you find offensive.

333

Sure, and if someone in the US made a film, and then people in the ME were peacefully protesting outside the US embassy as if that film represented the official position of the US government, and people in the US were like “wha, those were just some jerks living in CA, you guys are crazy!”, then that would be a great situation in which to discuss the differing values and priorities of different cultures. But that’s not what happened. They killed people. No amount of interesting parallelism can make the two sides of the situation remotely equivalent.

334

(a) learn to think, reason, and debate. You keep saying things that are in no way a relevant response to what you think you’re responding to
(b) How people choose to modulate their behavior is a decision each individual needs to make for him or her self… there are a wide continuum of hypotheticals relevant to this issue, certainly including some in which you yourself would choose to moderate your behavior based on the presumed reactions of others. What’s important, and whatever everyone in the thread agrees on, is that (i) governments should not legally restrict free speech based on the presumed reaction of homicidal maniacs, and (ii) no one should be a homicidal maniac in the first place

335

They didn’t just kill people. They ASS RAPED THIER CORPSES. They took pictures of it. It is nearly impossible to imagine anything lower on the scale of humanity. Perhaps raping infants. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if that was next. That anyone could even pop a boner for that is mind boggling. That anyone could do that in the name of a religion is rabid sick. Any god who would support it is worse than dogshit. Dogshit can’t help being dogshit.

336

I can only laugh. You are an internet crackpot if you think being a member of the keyboard brigade makes you a hero.

Oh really? You’re saying that if it wasn’t for the rioters that I would accuse Mohammad of pedophilia? Sorry, but no: I am not a sicko.

Pure hysteria. You’ve lost it Anduril. You’re unhinged. You are coughing up fruit loops now.

Sorry, but the felon who made that joke of a film was a transparent scammer. That you’re building him up to be some sort of defender of free speech only demonstrates the wisdom of P.T. Barnum.*

scratch llll: Didn’t know that. Cite? If that’s the case, yes some of the rioters are indeed pretty twisted nutters. Not that it wasn’t obvious already.

  • For every minute, there is a sucker born. I paraphrase.
337

I saw it on a news program. Some of it was fuzzed for modesty but it made me sick. I’m sure all it would take is to google ambassador rape- no- I just did and it said he was still alive while he was raped. He looked dead in the picture I saw. I’m not clicking the links.

I hope Al Jazeera posts his picture being raped on their news. If enough followers of the religion of peace see to what extent the depravity of it’s most extreme elements gladly stoop then perhaps they will dial back thier support of such scum. Al Jazeera owes that for it’s role in the disemination of the anti Muslim video. As a matter of fact if the Al Queda attack were a planed action then they may be criminally complicit in the action against the embassy.

338

What an idiotic response! I’m not fashioning myself as some sort of hero. I’m calling you a coward for bending over backwards in the name of liberalism. You’re an idiot.

.

Are you sure you still have your faculties intact? How could you squeeze this meaning out of what I posted? I’m saying that the proper response to this is NOT blaming the filmmaker.

How did I build him up as a defender of free speech? I don’t know where you’re getting this. And also, defending his freedom of expression is not dependent on whether or not he is a scammer.

339

How is my response NOT relevant? You say that what’s in issue is whether the filmmaker has any responsibility for the deaths. My take is that not only is the filmmaker NOT responsible for the deaths but that anyone who suggests so has gone off the deep end. Why should any one live their lives in fear of the homicidal reactions of extremists?

By modulating your reactions on the basis of homicidal maniacs, you are giving them incredible power over political discourse. By killing these people, these maniacs intended to send a chilling message to everyone that any criticism of Islam may be met with violence. Guess what? It worked on all of you. You are rewarding their murderous behavior by blaming the filmmaker over the killings. In fact, it’s precisely your kind of reaction that would lead to more violence in the future. (“They blamed the filmmaker the last time. Maybe if we kill another one, they’ll totally let us off and just blame the infidel filmmaker/author/etc”)

Instead of modulating OUR behavior, why not modify theirs. The way to do it is NOT by discouraging these types of movie. In fact, by encouraging more movies criticizing Islam, whether by satire or something more serious, we will be successfully modifying their behaviors - not that I’m a fan of this movie - in fact it’s pretty much a big load of crap.

340

I didn’t say the two sides were equivalent. I said that the two sides do not understand each other, and as long as that is the case no solution is possible. They killed people because they have an entirely different frame of reference. Acting as if we are all working from a set of collective values does not get us any closer to preventing similar situations in the future.