“IF a person believes that a subject has the right to exercise free speech without being murdered, THEN the person must agree with everything the subject believes.”
Contrapositive:
“IF a person DOES NOT agree with everything a subject believes, then that person DOES NOT believe that the subject has the right to exercise free speech without being murdered.”
Several people in this thread have vociferously asserted that they DO NOT agree with what Charlie Hebdo believed.
It cannot be the case that I support Pamela Geller unless you also support denying the right to life & free speech to Charlie Hebdo. Unless, of course, your assertion that “IF a person believes that a subject has the right to exercise free speech without being murdered, THEN the person must agree with everything the subject believes” is total horseshit. Which one is it?
I’ve been accused of blanketly “supporting” Pamela Geller and even viewing her as my “hero” multiple times. Despite dignifying these smears by going out of my way to repudiate Geller’s views on the use of military force and discriminatory immigration policy, the “thinking” around here, if you can call it that, has remained firmly in line with progressive dogma, which is that anything “bad” must be made illegal and anything that we tolerate must be endorsed.
If the Muslims and the Muslim apologists in this thread find the fact that someone who believes as many odious things as Pamela Geller has become a free speech martyr to be inconvenient, then maybe they should do something about the Muslims who keep trying to kill her and the clueless governments who keep trying to censor her. Ball’s in your court, really.
“Blanketly”? What an interesting word. What does it mean?
And if you persist in using Haberdash SneakyObliqueSpeak in preference to standard English semantic structures, naturally you’re going to have a hard time understanding other posters’ statements. Sarcastically calling Geller your “hero” is not the same thing as seriously asserting that you literally must agree with everything she believes.
Once you’ve got these and similar fundamentals of ordinary language use down, it will be time enough for you to start learning how to use logic to construct and analyze rational arguments. No sense trying to run before you can walk, and all that.
I like how, of all the bigoted, deranged, hateful opinions that Pamela Geller holds, like denying the genocide of Muslims in Bosnia, supporting the genocide of Muslims in Burma, allying with neo-Nazis, and (my own personal favorite) believing that Butterball is waging “stealth jihad” through their Thanksgiving turkeys, the ones that Haberdash wants to make sure that we know he disagrees with are her feelings about immigration policy and the use of the US military!
I don’t have any obligation to give my opinion on anything she believes in order to say that she should be able to draw Mohammad or buy an ad on a bus. Still having trouble with this, I see.
Actually, I’m still looking for a cite for that claim. So far, all I’ve seen are criticisms of a book review written by Chomsky and Edward S. Herman in 1977 (at a time when reliable English-language news sources in Cambodia were few and far between) in which they expressed some doubt about some early reports of the Cambodian genocide.
AFAICT, Chomsky for at least the past several decades has been completely in agreement with the general consensus on the facts of the Cambodian genocide, and in a 1993 film he described it as an “atrocity” that ranked as “the great act of genocide in the modern period”.
So I’m really not understanding where the continuing denunciation of Chomsky as a “Cambodian genocide denier” is coming from. I mean, lots of people in the early 1940s were skeptical about (what turned out to be entirely accurate) contemporary reports of activities in the Nazi death camps, but we don’t call them “Holocaust deniers” unless they persisted in refusing to believe evidence after it was solidly established beyond a reasonable doubt.
Sorry for the hijack, but I’m always rather cautious about claims that Chomsky supports various outrageously counterfactual or historically indefensible positions. I am definitely aware that Chomsky can be quite wrong about things, but there’s so much outright extreme misinformation about his views floating around on the internet that it’s sometimes hard to avoid stepping in it.
ETA: Curiously, Gareth Porter, the author of one of the pro-Khmer-Rouge books that Chomsky and Herman relied on when expressing doubt in 1977 on contemporary reports of the Cambodian genocide, doesn’t get called a “Cambodian genocide denier”.
High? Orbital, evidently. That stunt with the “Don’t shoot” comment prefacing his remarks to Muslim posters was pretty deep into jerk territory. It was so deep it was like walking halfway into a forest.
So the secular voices in these societies are facing the cold steel of Islam’s machete. My majestic wordsmithery, couched in truth, renders me an Islamophobe, though it reflects this exact sentiment you claim is widely accepted. OK.
What is bullshit is when 500,000 people march to cheers of “death to the bloggers” and it is defused as a pocket of “radical-extremism.” Clearly, half a million people in an otherwise civilized society had nothing better to do than suddenly succumb to what is a minor, unimportant strain of violent Islamist extremism.
I’ll agree that if one agrees with people like Howard Zinn that David Irving should be treated as a legitimate scholar and it’s disgusting to accuse him of being a Holocaust Denier even though he insists Holocaust Survivors have fabricated their claims then yes Noam Chomsky shouldn’t be called a genocide denier since he has copied David Irving.
Beyond that, I’d merely say that Chomsky has been luck in that the Holocaust he denied(and now pretends he never denied) was against dirty little gooks instead of educated white folks or “people like us”.
Granted, after what he’s said about the white Muslims of Bosnia and the Kurds, perhaps I’m being too harsh.
This is an exhaustive a dissection of Chomksy’s denialism and support for the Khmer Rouge as you’re likely to find (it even includes links to other examinations/discussions of it elsewhere). It goes beyond merely that 1977 article…even long after the fall of Pol Pot, Chomsky went to some lengths to minimize the crimes of the regime (and to try and rewrite the history of his own comments).
Broad-brushing bullshit like “the cold steel of Islam’s machete” doesn’t at all reflect the exact sentiment Kimstu describes, and in fact is the very thing that renders you an Islamophobe.
Why am I not surprised that you uncritically accept the claims of the Islamists? Again, it seems that the Islamic extremists and the self-professed Islam haters are on the same side of things.
Oh, and your own article says that there’s a lot more to the “protest” than your bigoted distillation of “Muslims want to murder secular bloggers” - " the secularists claim the main goal of the march is to halt the war crime trials of Jamaat-e-Islami leaders".