lawrocket 3 #26 May 4, 2015 rehmwaNormal for DZ.com to see a lot of strawmanning telling posters that they are anti-free speech for stating that people should expect retribution. The point that this is expected is not a comment on the nature of free speech or that some overly sensitive groups need to be accommodated - (no matter how much violent fanatics, religious and social agenda, try to scare society into it). One take on the "they need to expect this" is a bit less dramatic - I'd think a reasonable application of "they need to expect this" is likely better used as a statement that we need to protect or be prepared against violent and UNLAWFUL reactions by these groups. i.e., would it be reasonable for a group doing something like this to be able to request, and receive up front, additional protection from law enforcement? (or would that be 'profiling'?) Quade said that he thinks that they should actually be imprisoned for causing it. I'm not looking for a strawman. When someone says that the people attacked with guns should be imprisoned for causing it then the argument is straightforward. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
champu 1 #27 May 4, 2015 rehmwai.e., would it be reasonable for a group doing something like this to be able to request, and receive up front, additional protection from law enforcement? (or would that be 'profiling'?) I wonder if "may issue" law enforcement agencies would accept, "I'm a political cartoonist associated with anti-religious publications" as "good cause" on an application for a CCW permit... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #28 May 4, 2015 kallend***Never. But I've seen you rip apart people for blaming the victims. You know, BEFORE you start doing stupid shit, even if it's perfectly legal, you might want to think for a minute or two about how other stupid people might react. Cool Let stupid people control you then Leave the rest of us out of your bs"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #29 May 4, 2015 lawrocketQuade said that he thinks that they should actually be imprisoned for causing it. I'm not looking for a strawman. When someone says that the people attacked with guns should be imprisoned for causing it then the argument is straightforward. I try hard to just ignore posts like his, he's just poking at people and deep down knows better. But my question stands - would it have been reasonable for this group to demand protection of their free speech rights based on the history of fanatics attacking events like these. at first, it seems like a reasonable expectation of a government that is supposed to protect our inherent rights for us Would that be a slippery and expensive path to start down? where every group of trolling idiots will start requiring personal protection in their efforts to piss off other groups for attention? ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,625 #30 May 4, 2015 rehmwa***Quade said that he thinks that they should actually be imprisoned for causing it. I'm not looking for a strawman. When someone says that the people attacked with guns should be imprisoned for causing it then the argument is straightforward. I try hard to just ignore posts like his, he's just poking at people and deep down knows better. But my question stands - would it have been reasonable for this group to demand protection of their free speech rights based on the history of fanatics attacking events like these. at first, it seems like a reasonable expectation of a government that is supposed to protect our inherent rights for us Would that be a slippery and expensive path to start down? where every group of trolling idiots will start requiring personal protection in their efforts to piss off other groups for attention? As long as they are prepared to pay for the protection, I'm OK with that. Freedom isn't free, and that includes the right to piss people off deliberately.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,625 #31 May 4, 2015 rushmc******Never. But I've seen you rip apart people for blaming the victims. You know, BEFORE you start doing stupid shit, even if it's perfectly legal, you might want to think for a minute or two about how other stupid people might react. Cool Let stupid people control you then Leave the rest of us out of your bs The concept that someone might THINK about the consequences of their actions is clearly a concept that you can't understand.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #32 May 4, 2015 kallend******Quade said that he thinks that they should actually be imprisoned for causing it. I'm not looking for a strawman. When someone says that the people attacked with guns should be imprisoned for causing it then the argument is straightforward. I try hard to just ignore posts like his, he's just poking at people and deep down knows better. But my question stands - would it have been reasonable for this group to demand protection of their free speech rights based on the history of fanatics attacking events like these. at first, it seems like a reasonable expectation of a government that is supposed to protect our inherent rights for us Would that be a slippery and expensive path to start down? where every group of trolling idiots will start requiring personal protection in their efforts to piss off other groups for attention? As long as they are prepared to pay for the protection, I'm OK with that. Freedom isn't free, and that includes the right to piss people off deliberately. I agree with Killen here. Although with the caveat that perhaps they should also be afforded the right to and opportunity to defend themselves. But in the event they get shot, that's why we have Obamacare. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Divalent 89 #33 May 4, 2015 See! And just a few hours ago people were laughing at the TX governor for deploying the TX National Guard to protect against this exact type of thing! Once again a republican foils the evil plans of our president! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #34 May 4, 2015 kallend*********Never. But I've seen you rip apart people for blaming the victims. You know, BEFORE you start doing stupid shit, even if it's perfectly legal, you might want to think for a minute or two about how other stupid people might react. Cool Let stupid people control you then Leave the rest of us out of your bs The concept that someone might THINK about the consequences of their actions is clearly a concept that you can't understand. I understand it perfectly Not only have I jumped from planes (as you do) I worked high voltage lines for decades. What you clearly do not understand it the process under which people like these radicals control those who think as you do It is the consequeneses of your actions that I am more woried about"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #35 May 4, 2015 kallend*** I've noticed there are people who wish to appease. No, don't say anything about the bully. Call the Christians evil, bemoan their treatment of women and call them the Sharia. But don't mention the Muslims! A plague on ALL their houses, IMO. (With the possible exception of Buddhists) https://www.colombotelegraph.com/index.php/full-text-of-the-banned-time-story-the-face-of-buddhist-terror/ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhaig 0 #36 May 4, 2015 bigbearfng***Let me say this first: The gunmen were completely in the wrong. I'm not saying what they did was OK. That said... there is a certain amount of 'you must have expected this would cause massive trouble?' in my brain. Take some of the deepest held beliefs people have and then publicly proface and risucule them... What did you think was going to happen? It is kinda like painting a bullseye on your own head. There are better ways to address the issue I think. So free speech should be set aside if someone will get offended? way to miss the point. Just because it's legal to be an asshole, doesn't mean it's safe to be one. If being an asshole is so very important, than said asshole should expect repercussions.-- Rob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhaig 0 #37 May 4, 2015 SkyDekkerIs this the same Texas where the Governor has instructed the State Guard to spy on a Special Forces training exercise, because he is afraid it is really a ruse to take over the state by the Federal Government? That Texas? As some one else posted on Facebook, even the crazy is bigger in Texas. Abbott basically sent a guy to meetings. He created a communication channel that is under his control.-- Rob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,123 #38 May 4, 2015 rhaig***Is this the same Texas where the Governor has instructed the State Guard to spy on a Special Forces training exercise, because he is afraid it is really a ruse to take over the state by the Federal Government? That Texas? As some one else posted on Facebook, even the crazy is bigger in Texas. Abbott basically sent a guy to meetings. He created a communication channel that is under his control. Because Walmarts have been closed for 6 months to have them prepared to be used as detention centres. A state government is worried about the federal government invading it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,625 #39 May 4, 2015 Divalent See! And just a few hours ago people were laughing at the TX governor for deploying the TX National Guard to protect against this exact type of thing! Once again a republican foils the evil plans of our president! ... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #40 May 4, 2015 I put publicly burning bibles, staging a public "stepping on the flag" demonstration, and staging a "draw a cartoon of Muhammad" event as all subject to the basically same analysis, from every perspective. To do otherwise doesn't seem intellectually honest. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,625 #41 May 4, 2015 Andy9o8****** I've noticed there are people who wish to appease. No, don't say anything about the bully. Call the Christians evil, bemoan their treatment of women and call them the Sharia. But don't mention the Muslims! A plague on ALL their houses, IMO. (With the possible exception of Buddhists) https://www.colombotelegraph.com/index.php/full-text-of-the-banned-time-story-the-face-of-buddhist-terror/ OK, strike Buddhists too.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,625 #42 May 4, 2015 I love the way you can write two mutually contradictory posts within the space of a few minutes and yet seem blissfully unaware of it.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #43 May 4, 2015 kallend I love the way you can write two mutually contradictory posts within the space of a few minutes and yet seem blissfully unaware of it. That's so true! Wait, no it isn't. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #44 May 4, 2015 Andy9o8I put publicly burning bibles, staging a public "stepping on the flag" demonstration, and staging a "draw a cartoon of Muhammad" event as all subject to the basically same analysis, from every perspective. To do otherwise doesn't seem intellectually honest. add: tree cutting event human wall to keep lumberjacks from working gay protests (for or against) KKK parade "we hate/love cops" march save the boobies wild life massacre public movie watching nuke the windfarm gatherings etc etc etc sometimes protecting speech can be very difficult indeed if one truly is protecting speech, and not just protecting speech we agree with and speech can be very escalatory to many for sure - still needs to be protected. Sticks and stones should always apply - no matter what someone "says", it doesn't warrant throwing sticks and stones we should all be fans of equal response - speech warrants speech, etc. but some people can't handle that and respond childishly (we do seem to see a lot more so called "speech" that's really just assholes trying to get a reaction - sometimes I wish they'd just issue a paper and come out with whatever message they 'believe' they are symbolizing - we should all be fans of directness too) ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jclalor 12 #45 May 4, 2015 Go to a texas and a hold "Paint a picture of Jesus getting fucked in the ass" contest and see how that works . Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #46 May 4, 2015 jclalorGo to a texas and a hold "Paint a picture of Jesus getting fucked in the ass" contest and see how that works . So that's why Andres Serrano was assassinated. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ryoder 1,384 #47 May 4, 2015 One of the gunmen was well-known to authorities: http://www.buzzfeed.com/maryanngeorgantopoulos/reported-texas-gunman-elton-simpson-was-previously-investiga"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Driver1 0 #48 May 4, 2015 Quote“The moment you say that any idea system is sacred, whether it’s a religious belief system or a secular ideology, the moment you declare a set of ideas to be immune from criticism, satire, derision, or contempt, freedom of thought becomes impossible.” ― Salman Rushdie I don't care who you are. I cherish my right to free speech, even though there are others who say stuff I fucking hate (WBC pukes). It's one of the tenets of freedom. Freedom to say something without being killed or assaulted for it. This is the United States. This is not the middle east. If muslims here in the US protested on a street corner with signs saying "death to America!" or something, that's their right. And they should be able to do that without getting killed or assaulted. Come out with guns intent on retaliatory action because somebody was exercising their right to free speech, yeah, expect to get your ass shot down. Fuck you very much.There will be no addressing the customers as "Bitches", "Morons" or "Retards"! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #49 May 4, 2015 kallend I love the way you can write two mutually contradictory posts within the space of a few minutes and yet seem blissfully unaware of it. As I said Your thought process is more dangerous than the gunmans"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JerryBaumchen 1,048 #50 May 4, 2015 Hi Andy, Quote within the space of a few minutes Quote That's so true! Wait, no it isn't. You didn't wait the req'd few minutes. FAIL!!!! Jerry Baumchen Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
