Shooting in Paris

[Skyrad 0]

jakee

Quote

Of course they are innocent in the same way as a person who throws stones at a hornets nest the consequences of which being the hornets come and sting not only him but also kill others in the vicinity, he wasn't to blame it was the hornets that stung.

There is nothing "the same way" about that. Absolute bollocks, and in no way worthy of your normal level intelligence and rational thinking.

Quote

As I said, unintended consequences are still consequences.

So you would blame the girlfriend in my above example. Got it.

I didn't answer you 'example' as it is irrelevant to the argument and a poor analogy.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[turtlespeed 226]

jakee

Quote

Of course they are innocent in the same way as a person who throws stones at a hornets nest the consequences of which being the hornets come and sting not only him but also kill others in the vicinity, he wasn't to blame it was the hornets that stung.

There is nothing "the same way" about that. Absolute bollocks, and in no way worthy of your normal level intelligence and rational thinking.

Quote

As I said, unintended consequences are still consequences.

So you would blame the girlfriend in my above example. Got it.

Yes, they are much the same.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[jakee 1,594]

Quote

I didn't answer you 'example' as it is irrelevant to the argument and a poor analogy.

No - in my analogy a person is being held responsible for the criminal acts of another sentient human because they annoyed them a bit - this is exactly the same as what you're saying about Charlie Hebdo.

In your analogy a person is being held responsible for the acts of a non-sentient insect colony which they physically attacked that acts in an absolutely predictable manner based on instinct - this is nothing like the Charlie Hebdo situation and is laughabble nonsense.

So if you wouldn't blame the girlfriend in my example above, you will have to explain not.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jakee 1,594]

turtlespeed

Yes, they are much the same.

So you would blame the girlfriend in my example, or the women who wear short skirts?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

Skyrad

Of course they are innocent in the same way as a person who throws stones at a hornets nest the consequences of which being the hornets come and sting not only him but also kill others in the vicinity, he wasn't to blame it was the hornets that stung. As I said, unintended consequences are still consequences.

Ummm....

No. Not even close.

Throwing rocks at a hornet's nest is a deliberate physical attack on their home.
They will defend it.

This is analogous to standing a couple miles away from the hornet's nest and yelling rude names and making gestures.
The hornets won't see it as a threat and won't attack.

These murderous thugs have said "anyone who says anything we don't like will be targeted."

They shoot young women in the head for advocating education for girls.
They kill people who don't convert to their beliefs.
They stab people who make movies that they don't like.

The Charlie Hebdo staff knew that they would face potential danger for publishing what they did.
They did it anyway. I think that was reasonably courageous.

If they are that insignificant of a publication, why did the thugs feel it necessary to target them?

Lots of media outlets knuckle under to those threats.

South Park, which has skewered just about every "sacred cow" out there, didn't show an image of Mohammed when they could have (and they did most of the 'muslim jokes' in the context of Family Guy) out of concern over reprisals.

Lots of people are "showing support" for freedoms of the press and the victims of the attack.
I'd love to see that support translate into publication of those "offensive" cartoons.
Not ones that attack Islam in general.
Just the ones that show these extremist bullies for the brutal thugs that they are.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[HighJB 0]

Anvilbrother

True but no one in their right mind would go to Compton, or some bad part of New York and start screaming the N word to every black person they see and expect nothing to happen to them. There is consequences to free speech as great as it is.

Your comparison makes no sense at all.

ça passe ou ça frotte

[Skyrad 0]

Hornets are sentient beings, you clearly don't understand the term.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[turtlespeed 226]

wolfriverjoe

***Of course they are innocent in the same way as a person who throws stones at a hornets nest the consequences of which being the hornets come and sting not only him but also kill others in the vicinity, he wasn't to blame it was the hornets that stung. As I said, unintended consequences are still consequences.

Ummm....

No. Not even close.

Throwing rocks at a hornet's nest is a deliberate physical attack on their home.
They will defend it.

This is analogous to standing a couple miles away from the hornet's nest and yelling rude names and making gestures.
The hornets won't see it as a threat and won't attack.

These murderous thugs have said "anyone who says anything we don't like will be targeted."

They shoot young women in the head for advocating education for girls.
They kill people who don't convert to their beliefs.
They stab people who make movies that they don't like.

The Charlie Hebdo staff knew that they would face potential danger for publishing what they did.
They did it anyway. I think that was reasonably courageous.

If they are that insignificant of a publication, why did the thugs feel it necessary to target them?

Lots of media outlets knuckle under to those threats.

South Park, which has skewered just about every "sacred cow" out there, didn't show an image of Mohammed when they could have (and they did most of the 'muslim jokes' in the context of Family Guy) out of concern over reprisals.

Lots of people are "showing support" for freedoms of the press and the victims of the attack.
I'd love to see that support translate into publication of those "offensive" cartoons.
Not ones that attack Islam in general.
Just the ones that show these extremist bullies for the brutal thugs that they are.

Pouring gasoline on a flame is likely to cause a bigger fire.

Here are comments from the left's poster child, Jay Carney.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[HighJB 0]

Skyrad

***What i read in your message is just full of crap.
Accepting to shut our mouth because the bear has big balls is just giving up our right to be a democracy.

Hey if some idiots want to go and provoke terrorists in the full knowledge that those psychos are likely to come and kill them then thats up to them. Lets not pretend that they were heroes of free speech that is just bollocks. They were offensive just to get a rise, they got one. Sadly their shit kicking also got innocent people just trying to live their lives killed when the psychos came looking for them. Actions have consequences.

Terrorists don't like women to dress the way they like. When they'll say that allowing a woman not to wear à Nikab is provoking, will you put one on your wife to be sure that they won't think you are provoking them. At which point do you propose to stop giving up ?

ça passe ou ça frotte

[normiss 893]

Whatever.
I should be able to say FUCK any time I chose.
Get over it.
It's only words and pictures.
It's just fucking stupid to murder people for drawing pictures you don't happen to like.
Don't like 'em?
Don't look at 'em.
Nobody puts a gun to your head to force you to buy it and view them.

[Skyrad 0]

Can you legally fuck in the middle of a shopping mall without being charged with lewdness or lascivious behaviour or something akin? No why? Because it offends people, there are laws in every country which prevent offence its a fact.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[champu 1]

Terrorists are not bears, nor hornets, nor are they gravity. They are people. Rule of law means we hold people accountable for criminal actions no matter how predictable they might be. Dehumanizing your adversary with analogies like this isn't helpful.

The whole of the entire world is not Compton, nor Harlem, nor Mecca. Charlie Hebdo did not "go somewhere and yell obscenities" and get what was coming to them. Terrorists came to them (a place where you're legally allowed to say the things they said) and enforced rules that no one is interested in abiding by (formally or informally.)

[normiss 893]

No, but I can say FUCK YOU in public. Silly comparison.

Yet murdering them in public is ok, so long as they dislike what we're doing.
You have a troubling perspective.

Fuck them.
I'll say it in public as I chose.

Fuck them and their disrespect for anything but hatred, violence, murder, theft, rape, pedophilia.
I as well as the majority of the planet cannot and will not ever do anything but resist and fight them.
Fuck them twice.

[jakee 1,594]

Skyrad

Hornets are sentient beings, you clearly don't understand the term.

Oh, ok then. Hornets are intelligent so it's totally ok to compare them with humans, but it makes no sense to compare humans with humans. Right.

Dude, take a step back and think about what you're saying right now.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[BillyVance 35]

normiss

No, but I can say FUCK YOU in public. Silly comparison.

Yet murdering them in public is ok, so long as they dislike what we're doing.
You have a troubling perspective.

Fuck them.
I'll say it in public as I chose.

Fuck them and their disrespect for anything but hatred, violence, murder, theft, rape, pedophilia.
I as well as the majority of the planet cannot and will not ever do anything but resist and fight them.
Fuck them twice.

You got that right. There are good Muslims and there are bad ones. The bad ones are just so far beyond human decency. They're the worst of the worst that we've got in the world right now. Fuck ISIS. Fuck Al Qaida. Fuck all the other off-shoot bullshit islamic radical groups hell bent on terrorizing anyone who doesn't kowtow to their extreme brand of islam. They all can go to hell.

"Mediocre people don't like high achievers, and high achievers don't like mediocre people." - SIX TIME National Champion coach Nick Saban

[Skyrad 0]

jakee

Quote

I didn't answer you 'example' as it is irrelevant to the argument and a poor analogy.

No - in my analogy a person is being held responsible for the criminal acts of another sentient human because they annoyed them a bit - this is exactly the same as what you're saying about Charlie Hebdo.

In your analogy a person is being held responsible for the acts of a non-sentient insect colony which they physically attacked that acts in an absolutely predictable manner based on instinct - this is nothing like the Charlie Hebdo situation and is laughabble nonsense.

So if you wouldn't blame the girlfriend in my example above, you will have to explain not.

No, your analogy is hopelessly irrelevant as the attacker is committing a crime because of something the other person hasn't done.
If you don't like the hornets example I'll use humans.

As I previously said the Charlie Hebdo magazine was like a drunk in a bar insulting people, siting at Charlie's table are a group of people trying to ignore his loud mouth taunts. He seeing some known psychos with a touchy demeanour sitting at a table across the way and knowing what buttons to punch starts to insult them as best he can. The psychos get up come over and kill not only him but several other people on his table. Would they be alive if he had not been a obnoxious twat yes, did he kill them? No but they are dead as a consequence of his behaviour.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[jakee 1,594]

Quote

No, your analogy is hopelessly irrelevant as the attacker is committing a crime because of something the other person hasn't done.

It is something the person has done. She's got involved with someone she knows has a short fuse, and then refused to have sex when he asks. How can it not be partly her fault what he does next? If she'd just opened her legs he wouldn't have to go and find it somewhere else.

Quote

If you don't like the hornets example I'll use humans.

Of course I don't like the hornet analogy. No-one does. It's moronic.

Quote

As I previously said the Charlie Hebdo magazine was like a drunk in a bar insulting people, siting at Charlie's table are a group of people trying to ignore his loud mouth taunts. He seeing some known psychos with a touchy demeanour sitting at a table across the way and knowing what buttons to punch starts to insult them as best he can. The psychos get up come over and kill not only him but several other people on his table. Would they be alive if he had not been a obnoxious twat yes, did he kill them? No but they are dead as a consequence of his behaviour.

It's more like a guy sitting at a table telling offensive jokes to his freinds which the psychos overhear and react to. And in that situation there would be absolutely no blame attached to them for people being killed, just as in this situation.

Sure, they were involved in certain things that lead up to the deaths, but you could say the same thing about anyone involved in the terrorists' lives up to that point, even when that involvement was utterly benign.

Even the idea that what Charlie Ebdo was publishing was so despicable that it pushed into action extremists who would have otherwise lain dormant is preposterous. Nutjobs looking for provocation will always find it somewhere.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[wmw999 2,587]

However, the fault is still entirely the attackers'. Had they engaged in a yelling spree, or an insult spree, that'd be different.

Apparently France has a long-standing tradition of very mordant (to say the least) satirical cartooning. It's what was allowed historically in times when other types of free speech were more seriously abridged.

People who live in France need to understand that, just as people who live in the US need to understand about our gun laws. They may not like it, but it's a part of the landscape. Why would someone move to Venice and complain about the water?

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[ryoder 1,590]

wmw999

However, the fault is still entirely the attackers'. Had they engaged in a yelling spree, or an insult spree, that'd be different.

Or a lawsuit, like Jerry Falwell did with Larry Flynt.

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[Anvilbrother 0]

Quote

It's more like a guy sitting at a table telling offensive jokes to his freinds which the psychos overhear and react to. And in that situation there would be absolutely no blame attached to them for people being killed, just as in this situation

Bullshit Charley knew what he was doing. He wasn't printing religiously insensitive comics to "friends that like religiously insensitive comics". He already got death threats, even made the statement hes ready to die he has no family, bills, or children, and the government had them under security it got so bad. They just kept kicking the growling dog.

Im not saying BOOO free speech, and im not saying YAYY terrorism, but Charley got what he was asking for, and incited the terrorist to do what they did which got others killed. Criminally liable probably not, civilly liable could be, morally liable you bet your ass he is.

Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along,

[jakee 1,594]

Quote

He wasn't printing religiously insensitive comics to "friends that like religiously insensitive comics".

Of course they were. Who else was supposed to buy them?

Quote

Criminally liable probably not, civilly liable could be, morally liable you bet your ass he is.

I'll chalk you up as another guy who won't answer the girlfriend question posed above.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Anvilbrother 0]

Quote

Honestly right now all you sound like is the guy who claims that women in short skirts are sluts who deserve to be molested.

Quote

I'll chalk you up as another guy who won't answer the girlfriend question posed above.

You would be right, because that is an argument only brought up to incite others, be insensitive to some, and has no fucking place in this argument. It doesnt even contain enough variables to be a comparison to the Charlie incident.

Quote

Of course they were. Who else was supposed to buy them? Crazy

Answer this. Are you saying that Charley was making comics that were offensive to Muslims, ONLY to sell comics to a bunch of neck beard, 4chan loving bigots, and was in no way trying to incite Muslims?

Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along,

[normiss 893]

Asked for?

I don't think in any version of reality does a cartoon deserve a violent death.

wow

[jakee 1,594]

Quote

You would be right, because that is an argument only brought up to incite others, be insensitive to some, and has no fucking place in this argument. It doesnt even contain enough variables to be a comparison to the Charlie incident.

Right. You're blaming a bunch of dead guys with pens for the actions of a bunch of psychos with guns and I'm being insensitive. Makes perfect sense. "C'mon baby, you know you shouldn't make me mad like that." Sound familiar?

But if you don't like the girlfriend question, how about this analogy. James Foley, Peter Kassig et al were responsible for their own beheadings. Agree or disagree?

Quote

Answer this. Are you saying that Charley was making comics that were offensive to Muslims, ONLY to sell comics to a bunch of neck beard, 4chan loving bigots, and was in no way trying to incite Muslims?

They're called illustrations for a reason. I am absolutely positive they weren't trying to incite acts of violence, but illustrating their view of what was already happening.


(Y'know, this thread is bringing out defenders of islamic extremists I never would have expected.)

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[normiss 893]

"(Y'know, this thread is bringing out defenders of islamic extremists I never would have expected.)"

No kidding.


So long as you submit and keep your mouth shut, everything will be fine. Just go with the nice man with the machete.