News of the day

thellama73 wrote: lazland wrote: Scott is right. The reaction from the fundamentalist nutcases was entirely predictable. His comments clearly do not excuse what happened, which was an outrage - he is merely saying that it was always going to happen. What a sad and horrible world.  Scott is wrong. The philosophy espoused in his post indicates that every two bit thug and petty tyrant should always get their way, because if they don't the resulting acts of violence are entirely predictable and therefore the fault of the victims. I do agree with Pat, though, that we have no business being in Libya and after this we should remove all our people and let them have the whole miserable country to themselves.

I am a firm believer in sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me.  That being the case, I do think it is stupid that people get so upset over name calling such as what is essentially being done in this movie.  My point is that history shows that these people do get that upset over this name calling.  I can't say how much of it is actual real outrage and how much of it is people looking to "join the party" so to speak.  Those people aren't very well educated though so I am guessing it is more likely real outrage that they are told to feel by their opportunistic leaders.  Simple common sense says that it is a pretty stupid thing to smack a beehive with a stick and that is basically what the idiots who made the movie did.

I understand the point you are making, but I think it is misguided. You act as though these people (murderers) are not responsible for their actions. You say that they are uneducated, as if that means they are animals who have no moral responsibilities, and the analogy of the beehive treats them as a natural force rather a group of sentient individuals.

When a tiger escapes the zoo and kills someone, it should not be held accountable because it is merely acting on its instincts. Muslims are not animals, however, they are people and they should be treated in accordance with the same idea of justice we apply to Americans killing Americans.

thellama73 wrote: lazland wrote: Scott is right. The reaction from the fundamentalist nutcases was entirely predictable. His comments clearly do not excuse what happened, which was an outrage - he is merely saying that it was always going to happen. What a sad and horrible world.  Scott is wrong. The philosophy espoused in his post indicates that every two bit thug and petty tyrant should always get their way, because if they don't the resulting acts of violence are entirely predictable and therefore the fault of the victims. I do agree with Pat, though, that we have no business being in Libya and after this we should remove all our people and let them have the whole miserable country to themselves.

As always, there is one reason and one reason alone that we are there, and it is called oil.  And American businesses have an interest in such oil and therefore, since American business pays for our government to be there.

rushfan4 wrote: I'm not sure how my post indicates that every two bit thug and petty tyrant should always get their way.  And I certainly didn't say that it was the fault of the victims.  In this particular case though, I do think that the idiots who made the movie are equally culpable, as they were damn well aware that something like this would happen as a result of this movie.

I'm sorry but that is just nonsense. Our constitution allows things that offend radical Muslims and incites violence. Are we then equally culpable for these acts of violence? Should we adopt Sharia law to prevent them?

The implication of what you are saying is that if you know doing something will cause violence, and you do it, the violence is your fault. By extension, this means that a failure to capitulate to any threat of violence is tantamount to committing the act.

rushfan4 wrote: That being said, I certainly ain't going to feel sorry for a white guy who gets his assed kick by a black guy after he calls him by a racist name.  .

So you think having your feelings hurt justifies violence. I see.

rushfan4 wrote:   That being said, I certainly ain't going to feel sorry for a white guy who gets his assed kick by a black guy after he calls him by a racist name.

So the subjective issue of being insulted merits the reaction of inflicting objective physical trauma? I'm sorry, but that just doesn't make much sense to me. You can feel bad for bad people.

thellama73 wrote: rushfan4 wrote: I'm not sure how my post indicates that every two bit thug and petty tyrant should always get their way.  And I certainly didn't say that it was the fault of the victims.  In this particular case though, I do think that the idiots who made the movie are equally culpable, as they were damn well aware that something like this would happen as a result of this movie. I'm sorry but that is just nonsense. Our constitution allows things that offend radical Muslims and incites violence. Are we then equally culpable for these acts of violence? Should we adopt Sharia law to prevent them? The implication of what you are saying is that if you know doing something will cause violence, and you do it, the violence is your fault. By extension, this means that a failure to capitulate to any threat of violence is tantamount to committing the act. rushfan4 wrote: That being said, I certainly ain't going to feel sorry for a white guy who gets his assed kick by a black guy after he calls him by a racist name.  . So you think having your feelings hurt justifies violence. I see.

If you yell "fire" in a packed movie theater and people are trampled by the riot that ensues by the people that try to leave the theater.  Yes it is your fault, and our constitution, or at least our courts have interpreted our Constitution to say that it is your fault.  It is illegal to incite a riot.  And what I am saying is that these people knew that when they made this movie they would be inciting a riot. 

rushfan4 wrote: thellama73 wrote: I understand the point you are making, but I think it is misguided. You act as though these people (murderers) are not responsible for their actions. You say that they are uneducated, as if that means they are animals who have no moral responsibilities, and the analogy of the beehive treats them as a natural force rather a group of sentient individuals. When a tiger escapes the zoo and kills someone, it should not be held accountable because it is merely acting on its instincts. Muslims are not animals, however, they are people and they should be treated in accordance with the same idea of justice we apply to Americans killing Americans. As I said in my initial post, I certainly did not condone what they did.  I certainly do not think that they are justified in murdering people for being Americans.  They are uneducated though.  And they do what their religious leaders tell them to do.  They are brought up under a different ideology than what we are brought up under as Americans, but I think that there outrage is probably only slightly less than what would happen with the right-wing Christian nutjobs, if the roles were reversed and a Muslim created a movie depicting Jesus as a womanizer and child abuser.

Empathy is not the same thing as alleviation of guilt. I empathize with their reaction, but it's still condemnable. Much like the 9/11 terrorist, I understand their motivations and goals but that does not justify their actions.

thellama73 wrote: rushfan4 wrote: That being said, I certainly ain't going to feel sorry for a white guy who gets his assed kick by a black guy after he calls him by a racist name.  . So you think having your feelings hurt justifies violence. I see.

No.  As I said previously "Sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me".  But I still ain't going to feel sorry for a "victim" who provoked his attacker by calling him names.  Is the violence justified? No.  But in that situation I would certainly say that the "victim" brought it upon himself by provoking the attacker.

rushfan4 wrote:  But in that situation I would certainly say that the "victim" brought it upon himself by provoking the attacker.

rushfan4 wrote: thellama73 wrote: So anytime a group of people threaten to riot, you are obligated under the law to assent to their demands? Of course not.  If they start to riot you should just shoot them or run them over with tanks.

But if they say (hypothetically), "if you pass a law allowing gay marriage in your country, we will riot and attack you." Isn't passing that law then inciting a riot? You knew what would happen, they told you! It's your own fault!