The ISIS offensive in Iraq

[The Human Q-Tip]

Jehovah! Jehovah!

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

DP

 

[gourimoko]

Well, I think you're prejudiced. That's why I take exception to your posts.

Outrageous statement. Prejudiced against whom?

There's a level of arrogance towards anyone who disagrees with you.

That makes me prejudiced? I disagree all the time with folks like @Cratylus , @OptimusPrime , and @Maximus and I wouldn't consider my posts "arrogant," let alone "prejudiced" or racist...

You also offended me a long time ago with something you said that was unfounded nor supported. Sorry if it seems like I'm holding a grudge. I am.

Bro.. I don't care if you're holding a grudge - but stop following me around the board.

Please, for the umpteenth time put me on ignore and stop wasting everyone's time with this petty bullshit!

 

[Soda]

Nah, I prefer it this way. Like I said, some content is very interesting, namely NASA/physics related stuff. Hot-button topic browsing, however, isn't following anyone..

And let's not pretend like time spent browsing a forum is "valuable". Scroll fast.

 

[The Oi]

Jehovah! Jehovah!

I'll like any Monty Python reference. And I'll add one to the discussion:

 

[gourimoko]

Nah, I prefer it this way. Like I said, some content is very interesting, namely NASA/physics related stuff. Hot-button topic browsing, however, isn't following anyone..

Right.. I like how the whole "you're prejudiced" thing got dropped.. More telling is that you're clearly saying you're going to keep this punkass game going and going until we get mods involved?

Dude, just stop responding to me or put me on ignore; last time I'm going to ask, and last time I'm going to respond to you.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

I'll like any Monty Python reference. And I'll add one to the discussion:

Yeah, Python has so much great political/social/religious commentary buried in those movies that it's amazing. Even some feminists crack up at the whole "Loretta" discussion. And the "what have the Romans ever done for us" is just awesome.

I've always pictured gouri as being the logician in the witch/duck debate. Though I guess that leaves me as the guy in the diaper yelling "Jehovah", so that's not much better.

Didn't mean to be a dick earlier, btw. I had a point to make but made it like a jackhole. Sitting in my wife's hospital room after her surgery and frustrated that it looks like they actually missed what was causing the problem. Took a bunch of her woman parts, and it turns out the problem was her kidney.

 

[gourimoko]

Yeah, Python has so much great political/social/religious commentary buried in those movies that it's amazing. Even some feminists crack up at the whole "Loretta" discussion. And the "what have the Romans ever done for us" is just awesome.

I've always pictured gouri as being the logician in the witch/duck debate. Though I guess that leaves me as the guy in the diaper yelling "Jehovah", so that's not much better.

Didn't mean to be a dick earlier, btw. I had a point to make but made it like a jackhole. Sitting in my wife's hospital room after her surgery and frustrated that it looks like they actually missed what was causing the problem. Took a bunch of her woman parts, and it turns out the problem was her kidney.

Sorry to hear all this... Best of luck to you and your wife, bro.

 

[The Oi]

Yeah, Python has so much great political/social/religious commentary buried in those movies that it's amazing. Even some feminists crack up at the whole "Loretta" discussion. And the "what have the Romans ever done for us" is just awesome.

I've always pictured gouri as being the logician in the witch/duck debate. Though I guess that leaves me as the guy in the diaper yelling "Jehovah", so that's not much better.

Didn't mean to be a dick earlier, btw. I had a point to make but made it like a jackhole. Sitting in my wife's hospital room after her surgery and frustrated that it looks like they actually missed what was causing the problem. Took a bunch of her woman parts, and it turns out the problem was her kidney.

Sorry to hear about your wife. That sucks.

Let me know when enough time has passed that I can make a topical joke.

 

[spydy13]

My whole thing with this event is what the hell good was it ever going to provide the world?

Even if two guys didn't come to try to shoot people and this event went fine, all it was was a bunch of like minded people sitting around making fun of other people.

I'm not saying that those guys should be off the hook for wanting to kill someone over a cartoon, but wouldn't it be a better use of everyone's time if they actually tried to start a dialogue on this issue?

 

[Man Called X]

Whole thread full of hate from every side.

Kill yourselves, problem solved.

 

[Marcus]

Yeah, Python has so much great political/social/religious commentary buried in those movies that it's amazing. Even some feminists crack up at the whole "Loretta" discussion. And the "what have the Romans ever done for us" is just awesome.

I've always pictured gouri as being the logician in the witch/duck debate. Though I guess that leaves me as the guy in the diaper yelling "Jehovah", so that's not much better.

Didn't mean to be a dick earlier, btw. I had a point to make but made it like a jackhole. Sitting in my wife's hospital room after her surgery and frustrated that it looks like they actually missed what was causing the problem. Took a bunch of her woman parts, and it turns out the problem was her kidney.

Jesus, that's rough.

All of the vitriol being spewed from multiple directions has made me largely avoid this thread since shortly after its creation (or at the very least refrain from responding), but I sincerely wish your wife and your family nothing but the best.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Jesus, that's rough.

All of the vitriol being spewed from multiple directions has made me largely avoid this thread since shortly after its creation (or at the very least refrain from responding), but I sincerely wish your wife and your family nothing but the best.

Thanks. They don't think it's cancer because there's no mass, so that's good. But that stent is uncomfortable as hell, on top of the recovery from the other surgery.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

I'm not saying that those guys should be off the hook for wanting to kill someone over a cartoon, but wouldn't it be a better use of everyone's time if they actually tried to start a dialogue on this issue?

Absolutely. But really -- what is there to discuss? One group doesn't want a dialogue. They consider the issue a settled matter not open for negotiations -- don't draw pictures of Muhammad, period.

I've got some friends who are fundamental Christians and if there is one group in this country whom it is trendy to mock, it's them. It's open season for mocking those folk 365/24/7. Whether it's comedians, message boards, TV, whatever...have at them. You have entire memes built up around mocking Christians, and things like the "Flying Spaghetti Monster" that mock all religions but because of where it's popular, affect primarily Christians.

But here's the thing -- in this country, we (rightly) expect people to take that. It's part of the cost of your own freedom -- you must tolerate the offensive speech of others as well. We value that even more than do most Europeans, who have legal restrictions on what they call "hate speech", and on Nazism, Holocaust denial, etc. But not here.

Why don't we see a public hue and cry of "hey, quit mocking Christians just because you think it's funny?" Maybe because there is no fear that offending Christians will lead to violence? Because otherwise, why are we so much more concerned about offending Muslims than offending Christians? And I can't help but think that is rewarding violent extremism by giving it what it wants.

One of the arguments raised against civil rights marchers was that they'd be inciting breaches of the peace. Which was actually true, but that argument rightly wasn't considered a reason not to do it. Hell, we gave the Nazis permission to march through heavily Jewish Skokie, Ill., where more than 15% of the population was Holocaust survivors. The right not to have your speech silenced simply because it offends others is absolutely fundamental in this country.

Obviously, those who believe it moral to kill others because they have offended religious beliefs are in a separate category. But there is a another problem with the objections to this that goes beyond just killing.

I can understand and respect someone who is religious not wanting to see what they deem to be an offensive image. So if someone puts up a billboard on I-90 showing Muhammad wearing a yarmulke or something as a joke, and every Muslim in the area is forced to see it on the way to work, I think that's reprehensible and I'd condemn it.. But that's not what happened in this Texas situation. This was a private function inside a rented building. I'd guess that a Muslim would have to make a concerted effort to even see a single one of those cartoons. So what's the problem?

What I can't respect is that the outrage/opposition seems to extend beyond people being forced to see the offensive images. It actually goes to anyone, anywhere even drawing it, even if the offended Muslim (or any Muslim) never actually sees it. So here's what should be understood -- it is not opposition to something being done in public that a Muslim is forced to witness -- it's an attempt to dictate things other people do that you never see, and that never affect you. It's not an objection to what is being seen and witnessed -- it is an objection to someone else engaging in an action you don't like, even in private.

That level of offense and "respect my beliefs" just goes beyond anything I think we should respect. It's not just banning the Nazis from Skokie -- it's saying they shouldn't even be permitted to meet and speak anywhere.

I'm sympathetic to and would respect "don't deliberately stick images in front of my face that you know offend my religious beliefs." . I am not sympathetic to, and won't respect "don't draw those images even if I never have to see them." If the mere act of drawing an image of Muhammed somewhere offends Muslims, then I think it is that belief that needs to change.

 

[The Oi]

Absolutely. But really -- what is there to discuss? One group doesn't want a dialogue. They consider the issue a settled matter not open for negotiations -- don't draw pictures of Muhammad, period.

I've got some friends who are fundamental Christians and if there is one group in this country whom it is trendy to mock, it's them. It's open season for mocking those folk 365/24/7. Whether it's comedians, message boards, TV, whatever...have at them. You have entire memes built up around mocking Christians, and things like the "Flying Spaghetti Monster" that mock all religions but because of where it's popular, affect primarily Christians.

But here's the thing -- in this country, we (rightly) expect people to take that. It's part of the cost of your own freedom -- you must tolerate the offensive speech of others as well. We value that even more than do most Europeans, who have legal restrictions on what they call "hate speech", and on Nazism, Holocaust denial, etc. But not here.

Why don't we see a public hue and cry of "hey, quit mocking Christians just because you think it's funny?" Maybe because there is no fear that offending Christians will lead to violence? Because otherwise, why are we so much more concerned about offending Muslims than offending Christians? And I can't help but think that is rewarding violent extremism by giving it what it wants.

One of the arguments raised against civil rights marchers was that they'd be inciting breaches of the peace. Which was actually true, but that argument rightly wasn't considered a reason not to do it. Hell, we gave the Nazis permission to march through heavily Jewish Skokie, Ill., where more than 15% of the population was Holocaust survivors. The right not to have your speech silenced simply because it offends others is absolutely fundamental in this country.

Obviously, those who believe it moral to kill others because they have offended religious beliefs are in a separate category. But there is a another problem with the objections to this that goes beyond just killing.

I can understand and respect someone who is religious not wanting to see what they deem to be an offensive image. So if someone puts up a billboard on I-90 showing Muhammad wearing a yarmulke or something as a joke, and every Muslim in the area is forced to see it on the way to work, I think that's reprehensible and I'd condemn it.. But that's not what happened in this Texas situation. This was a private function inside a rented building. I'd guess that a Muslim would have to make a concerted effort to even see a single one of those cartoons. So what's the problem?

What I can't respect is thatthe outrage/opposition seems to extend beyond actually seeing the offensive image. It actually goes to anyone, anywhere even drawing it, even if the offended Muslim (or even no Muslim at all) never actually sees it. So it's not opposition to something being done in public that a Muslim is forced to witness -- it's an attempt to dictate things other people do that you never see, and that never affect you. It's not an objection to what is being seen and witnessed -- it is an objection to someone else engaging in an action you don't like, even in private.

That level of offense and "respect my beliefs" just goes beyond anything I think we should respect. It's not just banning the Nazis from Skokie -- it's saying they shouldn't even be permitted to meet and speak anywhere.

I'm sympathetic to and would respect "don't deliberately stick images in front of my face that you know offend my religious beliefs." . I am not sympathetic to, and won't respect "don't draw those images even if I never have to see them.

Excellent post.

I agree 100% that it's asinine that there's a contingent that will literally murder you for drawing an image of their prophet. And in MY eyes it's a stupid and arbitrary rule. But I feel that way about most religions, particularly when they dictate that people behave (or not behave) in certain ways that are not at all harmful to anyone.

There is no fear of fundamentalist Christians because, as you said, they generally won't fight back. There's nothing in the New Testament that says they should. It, in fact, says the opposite. So, because you're not going to see consequences or much complaining from that group, there's minimal sensitivity to their feelings. I think you're right that there should be, IF there is to other groups, even if I feel that their beliefs are illogical. ESPECIALLY if their beliefs aren't harming anyone.

My overall position is that if a group is wholesale offended by a behavior of others, then the behavior is not constructive. I do make an exception for comedy, because I feel that comedy is a way to wear down stereotypes and build trust between groups by acknowledging the absurdity of certain societal conventions or beliefs. But comedy comes from a different place and purpose than the "Draw Muhammad" shit. It isn't intended to be funny. It's intended to instigate and harm. And although at one point in my life I'd have been cool with that, I have adjusted my thought process to see why it's harmful and destructive.

I love free speech and think it's resulted in so many unbelievable freedoms here. But to me, with that right comes some responsibility to groups that might be offended in large numbers by what you say.

And to me, it's just not worth it to instigate crazy people.