So, for those people who were arguing how "free speech" includes the "right" to "say whatever I want" no matter what the outcomes of your free speech are for other people (including getting people killed from your right to draw pictures that incite riots etc.), now I can't pay my bills online.
You exercising your rights to insult people on the other side of the planet because you get off on being a jerk in the name of "freedom" is now affecting U.S. commerce.
Yes, you will say, "That just proves it's a problem that needed to be addressed, insulting them reveals the nature of the threat."
Well, I say, that is idiocy, and furthermore, your "rights" don't get to infringe on MY rights.
A month ago, and all the years prior, I could pay my bills online. Now, so that the idiots perverting the intent of "free speech" can get their jollies making videos that prove what everyone already knew (there are extremist nut-jobs living amongst the regular Muslims... duh, wow, thanks for pointing that out; I've been asleep for the last 8 decades)... U.S Banks under attack.
Don't blame the Muslims. Blame the morons who think it's a great idea to throw gasoline on a fire that is already burning stability down. F---ing idiots.
Here's a link in case you have no clue what I am talking about:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/ar … bb612f.231
Yep. The concept of 'rights' is way out of control. E.g. - Why should a 'right to bear arms' over-ride a 'right' to walk freely among unarmed people? It's patently stupid.
We'd a politician in UK, back in the day, called Enoch Powell. I didn't like the guy but had no argument against his observation that a 'right' ultimately has to be backed up by State force. So, while you're spouting venom, the Government has to protect you from all the ordinary folks you've goaded into threat of violence against you?
The phrase 'monumental stupidity' comes to mind
Rights in the United States have no need of government force to establish them, the only part that government plays in an American's rights is to leave them alone!
Blaming the actions of others on anything but the ones committing the actions is silly!
Not true, sorry. Anyone can make the opening gambit by saying something wholly out of order, but when the shit hits the fan and offended people want retribution, the perpetrator is rarely slow to demand protection, invoking violation of his/her 'right' of free speech.
Ahh, true, but one must be ready to accept the consequences of their actions. In my world, you say it, you stand behind it, you do not go running to the PoPo or the central government to protect you.
For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, if the individual is not prepared to take the reaction, they should not engage in the action!
Fine, but - the 'individual' is perhaps misguided enough to foment a backlash that results in the death of a hundred total innocents. Then supposing he steps up to the line and says 'I accept the consequences of my actions' - that is going to satisfy the 1000 bereaved innocents he created? I think not.
If someone were to hurt others due to something I said, it would not be my fault, it would be theirs. If my statement was not made, these individuals would find another reason to conduct violence. They would only be using my statement as an excuse to behave like the monsters they are.
If my following post upsets someone to the point that they would harm another that was not involved at all. They would be demented psychopaths just waiting for a reason to engage in horrific behavior.
Not true. You have respect, power and influence because, perhaps, you have a string of hit singles under your belt. You have 972,023 teenage fans who hang on your every word. You exercise your 'right of free speech' by issuing a new single called 'Kill the fags'. 173 guys are murdered (of whom 21 were merely camp, but who cares about fine distinctions like that?) You then appear on the radio and say "Nothing to do with me"
Who are you kidding?
(NWA F@#k The Police) This single caused quite a disruption in America, it was released anyway, police have been killed since the release but no charges were ever filed against the artist? Freedom of Speech! The ones that committed the violence were charged. If the artist were to make a statement to a crowd inciting them to violence, they would have been charged. Jim Morrison of the Doors faced charges of inciting a riot, so the U.S. does prosecute if warranted.
Can that actually be compared to depictions of Muhammad in the film or cartoons?
+1 x 1,000,000,000,000
These people making these videos don't take them over there and stand up on the hood of a car and play them their iPad shouting, "Look what I made!"
All the arguments about "free speech" are B.S. I think people making those arguments are either too dim to understand the implications of what they are saying or they just like to argue for the sake of argument. I have yet to see any one of them get past their opening salvo of, "It's my right to say it."
You talk about infringing on the rights of others, they run to the "well, the world needs to see how bad it is." That's it. The world needs to see what it has had jammed in its face for 1500 years already. That's the awesome comeback.
I just want to pay my bills! I'm pretty sure some of those people over there wish their dad was still alive. Or their brother. I mean, sure, it's great you got to exercise your free speech and all, but....
Um....you can blame it on the liberal view of "free speech". America has been bullied by many liberals including our President to tolerate all kinds of outlandish viewpoints and illlustrations and demonstrations in the name of "free speech". No wonder the radicals from ALL corners think they don't need to curb their tongues nor their actions. And indeed they don't have to, and they can't legally be blamed for it, even though they SHOULD be held responsible for their actions. If we allow vulgar displays in the name of "free speech", we can expect no less than for ALL radicals to use the same "rights". It's all a repercussion of "changing America at its foundation", something that should've been nipped in the bud when it came outta his mouth.
Well until you crack open the bible and starting dragging the conversation off in a strangle hold into the woods of Christian absurdity, I will say, for now, that you have SOME point there. I only qualify that much because I am familiar with your posts in the forum, so I, if I am being honest, dread where you may go next. However, for now, I agree in part with the assertion that we have let liberal interpretations of some things go to the extreme. A society with NO structure is not a society for long.
GOD DAMN IT.
Did have to be WELLS FARGO!?!?!?!?!?!
I have to pay my bills this week! It's the end of the month! Online banking has been a GODSEND for me because of my long commute, and long work days. I am never home in time for the bank to even be open. CRAPOLA. I guess I will have to walk to the bank this Saturday, and wait until Monday for any changes to even go through in the system.
Thank God WF is open Saturdays. I'm sure it'll be batshit crazy in there, though!
Well, I think we've gotten to the heart of your rant.
You just can't pay your bills. Maybe you should consider changing banks.
Some questions (to answer or ponder):
Are you advocating a repeal of the 1st amendment, or simply suggesting that it would be useful if people engaged their brain before excercising their right to practice freedom of speech?
Where certain values in different types of society are incompatible - freedom of speech (secular), blasphemy (theocratic) - what can each type of society do to bring about greater harmony (assuming greater harmony is the desired outcome)? Is there an onus on one to do more than the other?
Is a theocratic type of society ameniable to change, or immutable by nature? If the former, what brings about change? If the latter, how do secular and theocratic societies avoid clashing (assuming an avoidance of clashing is the desired outcome)?
Are controversies like this a product of the internet age (or more accurately the world wide web)?
Definitely the latter, although your question seems to want to create a false binary. There are more options than simply tossing out the Constitution or doing nothing but hope everyone will think before they act.
It is the nuanced and definitely philosophically tricky task of thinking people to find the right balances in complex things. And that's got precedent in this type of thing, as there are laws against inciting riots (which include some "hate speech" wording) and crying "fire in a crowded theater" and that sort of thing. It is reasonable to try to discern the difference on a case-by-case basis as to whether any particular act of "free speech" is in the spirit of the amendment, or simply meant to stir the fire, which is how those provisions I've just mentioned came about. I think in the end, we have to err on the side of freedom, but I think it is reckless to simply shrug and go, "Oh well, it's totally cool if people come over here from Egypt with an agenda to start riots and foment war, using our system as a shield to hide behind because, well, I mean, free speech and stuff."
We have to keep thinking and keep examining our world, asking questions and always at least trying to find the right balances between our ideals. There is more than one principle at stake in this debate, which is why I continue to point out that this thread is about the "perversion" of free speech.
If there was a pat answer to those questions we'd be living in a completely different world.
Depends on the society. Technically, they should be immutable, but people are pretty good about finding ways to bend doctrine to fit changing needs (economic, cultural, technological, political). Unfortunately, that usually creates the rifts and sects you see in theocracies around the world. Orthodoxy vs. adaptive liberality is an old, old, old story. And there is a reason that there are far more dead religions on the heap of outdated mythology than there are active faiths in any given era. At some point, every religion falls in on itself under the weight of its own failings. Always have, always will.
They don't. The secular society has to hope the theocratic one finally figures it out, but, as a theocratic society figures it out, the clingers-on become more and more desperate as they become marginalized, and the guys who used to reap the profits off the faithful lose power and, like cornered animals, become desperate and violent—hence present day Earth.
The spread of information is responsible. The Internet only speeds up a process that has been going on since the earliest exchange of cultures began.
The people that do the damage are responsible for the damage, I don't care if they are irritated, drunk, had a bad mother, are high on twinkies or in a gay panic. Violent people are responsible for their violence, 100 percent themselves.
What next, the wife deserving being beaten because she didn't do what she was told? She outraged her husbands religious faith in male dominion and so it was all her fault? No, that is not how it works.
Speech is free because it is just speech. Adult people show self-control or go to jail. They don't get to shift the blame.
That's all true. And that's why it was never necessary or desirable to say that 'free speech' was a right. All that did was bring it into the province of Law, where a pile of free-loaders could make money out of it. Speech was always free, except for the cowards who insisted on State protection before opening their mouths.
While I agree, in part, with some of the principle here, I think it misses one major, and very important thing: reality.
First, that analogy doesn't work. I would pick apart all the reasons why but it would take up too much space and nobody wants to read an 800 word essay on the difference between Eastern/Western philosophy and a drunk redneck.
However, there are a few points I will try to break out and maybe you will see where I am coming from:
1. "Free speech" is an American ideal. Furthermore, it is a secular ideal.
2. The Middle East is NOT part of America. In addition, it is not secular. In another addition, it is an area rife with violent religious history dating back almost 20 times longer than America (the U.S.) has been a nation.
So, to expect people living in a largely theocratic society, in impoverished one no less, where strife has been ongoing for centuries and where hatred of the U.S. is literally taught in school AND in church (mosque), you can hardly think that there is any chance they value what we call "free speech."
So, since, as a thinking person living here, you can surely see that expecting THEM to behave the same as YOU would is not reasonable.
Which, then, means that condoning the manufacture of incendiary videos makes no sense. We already know that making cartoons and videos doesn't convert them to reason, calm, or peace. If nothing else, we've known it since the Danish cartoon. It's not a threat to our national manhood to admit that there are certain things that throw some of them into violent fits. We get it.
It is not an act of cowardice to recognize an obvious fact like that. Our best strategy is to live well, make better stuff, more effective sources of energy, and show them an alternative life to one spent bowing to characters out of 1500 year old mythology. We have to win them over in time, with patience and strategy, and yes, an ongoing offensive on the extreme elements that would do harm. But just pissing them off because you think it's "mah right ter be free an' say whutever ah want tuh" is, in my opinion, the antithesis of intelligent, civilized behavior, and certainly not what the framers meant when they wrote of free speech.
We can't even get a majority of our own population to stop bowing to thousands of years of mythology and hogwash. Good luck with that.
That's a lot of my point.
Since we know it's hard to get people to give up religion, it's like crack, how dumb is it for people to think they will be doing anything good by making videos that piss those religious people off? It's stupid. It's not free speech, it's free incitement to violence. That is not protected under the constitution even here in the U.S.
What next, the wife deserving being beaten because she didn't do what she was told? She outraged her husbands religious faith in male dominion and so it was all her fault? No, that is not how it works.
Completely different scenario, in this instance the abuse is not blamed on the victim, but those who have both incited and perpetrated the violence.
Are images and language deliberately put out there to incite violence the equivalent of yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater?
It's pretty hard to contain the Internet within the United States. Our right to free speech is protected HERE. Why/how should it be protected in countries that do not share our values?
BECUZ WE R 'MERICA!!!!!!!!! WOOOOOOOOOOO HAAAAAAAAAAA!
Cultural imperialism definitely factors into this.
Only through the desire for it by a small-minded minority that thinks that making incendiary You-Tube videos is a demonstration of their cultural superiority.
(Or, more than likely if you look and see who made that video, you'll see it was made by someone FROM that culture who wants that culture to think we are a bunch of idiots, which, sadly, we have people defending it as if it were free speech and not a calculated tool used by a radical to inflame his people with the "evidence" of American arrogance and disrespect—but I expect that is way more thinking than most are willing to put into it.)
That is what you see in Qatar if you browse to anything the State doesn't want you to see.
Where is the line drawn between speech and offense. Should we compile a list of everything that could offend anyone and begin to silence these types of statements. Should a Yankee fan stay out of Boston wearing their teams jersey because it could offend the home team fans. I don't know how much anyone knows of the RedSox/Yankee feud, but a person could be seriously harmed if found in the opposing city with the wrong jersey. Silly example, but it is also silly to try and appease everyone's sense of offense.
How can you possibly compare a sports Jersey HERE in America, between Americans to the thousands of years of religious violence in the Middle East?
It's that kind of ridiculous red herring garbage that prevents us as a people from unifying behind a REAL solution.
Us goddamn sportsfan Americans are more concerned with "winning" ... our candidate... our side of the Internet debate regardless of how little thought we put into it... our favorite contestant on The Voice ... that we have completely lost site of the point of argument and debate: TO FIND A REASONABLE SOLUTION.
It's not about WINNING. It's not "See, my side is right. We should all make videos and piss them off."
It's, "Hmm, is the current situation good. Is what we are doing working? Are their other actions that might be better? What are they?"
American's aren't even arguing over the right things. (Bleh... I get so pissed off I can hardly see straight. And I wouldn't even care, except I can't pay my goddamn bills, so the morons have intruded on my life with this crap. I could have written another 2,000 words on my novel by now).
Where is the line drawn? OK, putting a crucifix in a jar of urine and calling it art also made many people angry, should this type of activity be stopped or is it ok because no one was angry enough to kill over the offense?
How do we know what will trigger a violent outburst? Hindsight does not help in these matters. Should all religions be free from offending material or just certain ones? If it is due to violence, should other religions act with violence in order to protect their prophets?
(gotta bounce for the night, too bad, I am enjoying this discussion)
The slippery slope argument stands as one of the oldest and mostly widely acknowledged logical fallacies. So that argument doesn't work.
We are NOT talking about a jar of urine and a crucifix. We are NOt talking about the person or persons that may or may not have been incensed by it. We are talking about pictures/images/videos of Muhammed being created in THIS period of time, right now, in this part of history, as we speak, POST 911, in a time where we have troops in Afghanistan... that is what we are talking about. We are talking about the repeated actions of people knowingly instigating riots under the guise of "free speech" when in truth, they want to start riots.
Free speech is a strength of ours. I agree with you on that. However, and if you will permit me to compare our nation to a gorgon for a moment for lack of a better analogy coming to mind, think of free speech in THIS instance as the gaze of the gorgon, the strength of the great and powerful creature.
Perseus was a little punk beotch compared to Medusa. He knew he couldn't beat her in a fair fight. So, he got some friends, did some research, and, like a fox, not a lion, he used the mirror shine of his shield to reflect Medusa's power back on her. He used her strength against her.
He never should have been able to take her down, but she was vain and corrupted by her overconfidence. It never occurred to her to alter her approach. She underestimated her adversary, was unbending and unthinking, and so she fell.
These extremists think we are Medusa. They think they are Perseus. We are acting like Medusa, the snakes in our hair hissing through videos and cartoons, declaring with forked tongues it is "free speech." We look evil to them by our disrespect. We are too arrogant to admit this. We call it "appeasement" like some drunk rednecks slamming 'shine on a Friday night.
I'm not crazy about what the guy did who made the film. And I'm sorry you can't pay your bills. But, I would rather be sorry for you and disappointed in him than see free speech fall victim to fear of how others will react to it.
I wouldn't have gone out of my way to offend a large group of people, but I would go out of my way to defend his right to say what he felt compelled to say. I don't have to agree with him.
So you are one of those on the side of my right to scream "FIRE, FIRE" in a crowded theater and get you trampled to death too, eh? I'll be up in the balcony of the theater enjoying the show, high fiving my homies, and declaring the greatness of "free speech" as a mindless exercise with no repercussions for the speaker, ever, while I watch you and twenty others die. You're good with that, right?
No. There should be repercussions for the speaker. However, throwing a hissy fit an ocean away, burning buildings and rioting aren't repercussions. They are making an excuse for violence.
If I reacted in that manner to something you said, would I be at fault; or would you be? Isn't your argument treating those in other countries as if they were incapable of taking the same responsibility you expect of me?
I don't see how changing our way of life is a fair compromise. And it wouldn't be changing our way of life, except for Islam. We aren't going to declare every religion off limits. Are we? Or just those willing to resort to violence? Wouldn't that breed more violence?
Woah, woah, woah... you jumped off that wayyyyyyyyyyyyyy too fast. Go back to the first line: "There should be repercussions for the speaker."
The riots are not repercussions, you are correct. The riots are outcomes. Big difference. Repercussions are what the "free" speaker gets. And, at least based on what you wrote there in the first sentence, you DO actually believe free speech is not unconditional.
See, I count that as us having found some middle ground here.
Not every incident is identical, and this is the danger of analogy. Most often, analogies fail by their differences from the comparison, not by their similarities. That's the case with this analogy. If you call me a poop-face and I punch you in the mouth, well, that's what you get for exercising your free speech. Maybe next time you will think about keeping your mouth shut. It's a one-to-one exercise of your right to speech vs. your willingness to face the consequences. It's you suffering both repercussion and outcome.
Yes, you will call the cops and I'll get thrown in jail... maybe. Depending on the judge. The thinking arbiter will decide if my actions were just or not, and in a reasonable manner, we will decide what the repercussions of MY response were. I may or may not go to jail (probably not, but let's call it an unknown). However, the OUTCOME of my response will be that you will not to call me a poop head again (unless you are dim and like getting your teeth knocked out in the name of free speech).
Are you an appeaser and a coward if you don't come running out of the dentist's office after getting your new tooth implants to call me a poop head again, or are you just someone who has learned that teasing me for no reason is dumb, dangerous and expensive?
Moreover, that analogy is not the same as if you were inciting thousands to violence from a safe place far away using a proven hot button that crosses a cultural line that is completely absent in our poop head example. Because you are no longer the only one getting punched in the face as the repercussion of the act (in fact, in the case of the videos, no one responsible for the videos is getting punched in the face). The only people getting hurt are those completely unrelated to the video in any way. So you are paying no repercussions AND you are suffering no outcome at all. You just get to sit back, watch those guys get pissed off and watch those other guys get killed. You are completely removed from it all but for the fact you started it, no repercussions at all, which you said do matter.
So, in that case, THAT is not freedom of speech. In fact, I call that evil.
How is refraining from antagonizing people on the other side of the planet changing our way of life? Is that what America is about? Fighting for the right to be as rude and disrespectful as we possibly can? Fighting for the right to, no matter how passionately and adamantly another culture tries to explain to us that doing this one simple thing is an extreme insult to them, no matter what we must insist on, nay, not just insist, we must aggressively pursue that very thing to prove... to prove... to, erm, to prove that we, uh, can?
Is that what America is? An unthinking bully that is going to jam our opinions down every throat we can, even constructing situations with one hand so we can slap it down with the other?
I'm sorry, but that's not the America I believe in.
Free speech is not unconditional you are correct. The speaker has to be willing to accept the consequences. But my reaction to you steppng into a crowded room and yelling fire, is not the same as my reaction to my choice to watch a video that I know is going to offend me. So, I'm confused as to why you appear to be insisting the repercussions be the same.
Of course analogies fail by their differences. this is usually due to the listener not looking for middle ground but wanting to win an argument. Your fire analogy fails but I'm attempting to understand your reasoning.
I am not condoning the actions of the gentleman that made the video. Nor am I condoning the actions of those within Islam who reacted to the video. But, taking away a person's right to make a statement they feel compelled to make is wrong.
I cannot agree to label it evil since I have not seen the video and I do not know the motivation of the gentleman who made the video.
I'm shocked by the rest of your post. You label America a bully because a guy made an offensive video? Which people, by their own choices, chose to watch and react to? I'm not sure I'd want to live in a world you were in control of. We must toe your idea of a politically correct line out of fear at how others will react to our beliefs? Would this be a worldwide mandate, or are only Americans expected to succomb to the bullies?
I didn't label America "a bully." What I did is called a "rhetorical question." It is common in conversations where complex ideas are being discussed.
Rhetorical questions? Are you serious? Your rhetorical questions implied that the actions and opinions of one film maker are representative of every citizen of this country. That the simple process of making a film is tantamount to shoving our collective opinion down the throats of the world.
If our government had made that film and then surreptitiously inserted that film into the time slot of all Middle Eastern stations which usually played the popular sitcom 'The Adventures of Ahmed in Paradise'; thus forcing millions of unsuspecting Muslims to view it...your arguments would be logical.
As it stands, you are attempting to insist that a very complex issue can be resolved by a ridiculously short sighted idea of revoking the rights of millions.
No, you just aren't reading very carefully in my opinion. Nobody else read what I wrote and came away with that, not even the people who I consider to be trolls and sock puppets, so, I don't want to argue with you, not out of disrespect for you opinions, but mostly because you completely missed what I meant. I'll even take the blame and say that I probably wrote it crappy and it wasn't intelligible to all possible readers, and just agree to ... not keep arguing with you based on a lack of connection via language. It happens.
I haven't missed what you meant. And I don't want to argue with you either. To be honest, I consider you fairly intelligent so I'm a little flabberghasted at your opinion on this one. It doesn't make much sense.
Well, we'll just call this one a conversational disconnect and move on the, eh? No worries, it is an Internet debate after all. I think we can all afford to let one go from time to time.
No one is missing what you wrote, especially the part about the trolls. That's why your credibility is gone.
This issue appears to be one where fear pushes people into unreasonable positions. I find it difficult to fathom how a person born and raised in a free society could argue such an unthought through stand, but that is the beauty of freedom of speech.
Sorry, but that straw man doesn't work.
In the end it boils down to this; does your right to freedom of speech trump the rights of another human being's life? Some big mouth who felt he had the right to say what ever he wanted,globally, I mean, he broadcast his views across the world, placed another man's life in jeopardy. It appears that freedom of speech has a greater value than human life, to some that is.
I have to jump to their side for a moment, just so they don't derail this on a technicality...
Freedom of speech is more valuable than a human life if it is a matter of shouting down tyranny. If it is free speech in the righteous cause of justice and liberty and human rights, actively pursing not just with its mouth but its blood and the strength of its arm a cause of rightness... then yes, it does matter, and free speech can, in that extreme but historically relevant situation, take precedence... and I will certainly allow the qualifier that it is best if the cause has a chance of success as a result of the action, and furthermore, that the lives lost be willingly given in the main and greatest numbers.
Inciting riots from across an ocean from the safety of your anonymous internet living room while people die is not "free speech" in the same manner. Hence the title of this thread, "the perversion of 'free speech' comes home" to the U.S.
If it is free speech in the righteous cause of justice and liberty and human rights, actively pursing not just with its mouth but its blood and the strength of its arm a cause of rightness
Yes, but it wasn't. Human rights were neither protected nor fought for, and it wasn't a tyrant that was brought down but a man who was trying to make a positive difference. He paid, his family are paying and more who do not deserve to suffer will pay.
Don't get me wrong, I AM for freedom of speech, I DO believe that we should speak up about injustices, but this guy just mouthed off about a religion he probably knows little about, and also must know that there are Islamist extremists just like there are other religious extremists, who would consequently take their revenge against innocent people. He didn't have any message of any value, just an offensive rant which he must have known would incite violence. We need to be smarter about defining what freedom of speech actually is and what it means.
You and I are, and I believe always have been in agreement. I only stepped in there to make sure that the difference between "free speech isn't worth a human life" got clarified as to being "not worth a human life if it's just some douche mouthing off" as opposed to that in service of true causes of desperate and assailed upon liberty.
Sorry, but that is a Questionable Cause fallacy. The man's views didn't intentionally call to put that particular man in jeopardy.
He may not have called for this particular man to get hurt, but unless he's been in a coma for the last couple of decades, he was certainly aware that the video would cause outrage amongst Muslims, and therefore know that there was a strong possibility that said video could endanger the lives of US citizens living in countries where Islam is the predominant faith.
Then, we are back at square one in which we are kowtowing to Islamic beliefs while ignoring and avoiding the real problems.
But the westerners who live in Islamic countries accept that those beliefs are held and agree to abide by the rules governing the country. If the man who made the video was having to abide by said beliefs against his will then his actions would have been justifiable. Correct me if i'm wrong, but the producer of the video is a US citizen, residing in the US. In what way does he have to cowtoe to Islamic values or beliefs in his own country?
And, the people who live in Islamic countries who riot and kill others are abiding by the rules governing them?
Before I answer your question, please answer mine.
"And now, Muslims are facing bias that needs to be challenged, Halloran said.
"We need to speak out against discrimination against Islam," he said."
These Muslims don't wish to abide by the laws of the country they live, they want them changed to suit their religious beliefs.
That should answer your question.
By not drawing cartoons or making videos of Muhammad. This is expected globally by Muslims.
Most people hide their cowardly behavior in disguise of freedom of the speech. That man who made the film knows what he is doing, he had a purpose. The film is disrespectful of other culture - disregarding what is important to other people. Ethnocentric behavior.
That man is one of the extremists. What he did was akin to painting a U.S. flag on a grenade and tossing it into a crowd of his own people. All these people here are defending his right to do it as if he were some well-meaning American citizen complaining about Obama.
Anybody who starts violent actions as a result of something presented, is wrong.
Pandering to their sensitivity will only make them more strident and reactionary against what you say.
Whatever the west (America and Europe) say is wrong, because 'we' are the great Satan in their eyes, they do not mean that literally, simply that 'our' culture is so obscene in their perception, that it must be subjugated or destroyed. Being nice will not change that concept, adopting their demands will only lead to subjection under Sharia law.
The next world war will be with Islam, to them it will be a Holy war, for the west it will be a war to bring democracy. The conflict is the two differing concepts as to how people should live.
That war is inevitable, indeed it has already started 'unofficially' mainly because the 1% NWO power elite who actually pull the strings on both sides of the divide WANT that war, their hearts are set on it, and in the same way that Pharaoh's heart was hardened, so are theirs, on both sides, so they will push relentlessly on towards the destruction they desire to take place.
Meanwhile.... you are worried about how to pay your bills online!
You can perhaps see the cultural differences that make conflict inevitable!
You're probably right, but I can keep trying to make my side of the equation (America) not be so reactive and easily manipulated, like some dumb culture of amoebas who can be made to do anything by predictable stimuli.
I fear you are going to be the winner in the end, and we'll all get sucked into the war of our own stupidity, but, well, it's at least worth some typing on my part to try to spread the message of thought before we all commit to the decimation of millions. I mean, yes, if it comes to it, F-them, and they can all die if that's what is has to be, but I'd like to think it doesn't have to be that way. We're supposed to be the enlightened ones. That's what we keep telling ourselves. But at some point, nuking the middle east in the name of enlightened thinking seems a bit paradoxical. Not saying I won't vote for it if they keep f-ing with us, because, at some point, the fighting has to stop, but I don't condone the willing provocation of continued fighting by people here just because they have the leisure time, the technology and safety to do it. For now.
You want to make a video or a cartoon... great... go over there and do it in the middle of downtown Tehran. If you aren't willing to do that, then shut up.
That's my point.
...and one we can agree upon.
I live in a Muslim country, and frankly I feel safer here than I would in the west, and there are far fewer areas where I disagree with their 'morality' rules than I imagined would be possible.
Sure there are things which I view as bizarre rules, but considering that they (the authorities) are dealing with a more simplistic populace, who are basically about 100 years behind western thinking, some of those rules make sense, and in any case are mainly only affecting the Muslim population.
If it were in the hands of the people of the world, there would be no more major wars, but it's not, it's in the hands of politicians, banksters, religious leaders and the military / industrial complex, which is controlled by the banksters anyway.
55 major banks own between them 1300+ trans global corporations, which in turn own 41,000+ multinational corporations, who control 80% of the worlds trade.
The Rothschild family control those 55 major banks.... and start and supply wars financing and providing the weaponry for both sides of the wars they start.
No wonder your on-line banking is disrupted!
Ah, but who is defining righteous, justice, liberty and human rights?
What if the filmmaker believes -- notwithstanding the base nature and poor execution of the film -- that his film's express purpose is to shout down the tyranny of Islam?
I don't expect many (or any) of us agree that his anti-Islam crusade is right or qualifies as a righteous cause under your definition above.
Any more than we agree that radical Islamists' crusade against the West is righteous. Although we respect and defend their right to make death threats against us, right?
I don't believe for a moment he had any intent of doing anything but inciting his fellow-but-less-radical-muslims to riot by making a video "in America" using his "right to free speech" and posting it on the "capitalist tool of satan that is YouTube" to get exactly this result. He knew that outraged 'Mericans, who are not famous around the globe for thinking (or reading) would cry out for WAR, and, well, then he can prove to his people how evil we are, etc.
We are the stupid ones for allowing ourselves to be so easily manipulated, so, there it is.
Well I know how we can really get 'em.
We simply REFUSE to go to war!
They are craftier than that. They will keep inciting violence, using the tender underbelly of their own culture to make America look bad (like we need help), and they'll frame our culture to foment the hatred as long as they can, until finally (yet again) we get tired of it and demand another invasion. And, like all the wars since Vietnam, we won't go in with the intent to annihilate much less to colonize, so, they know they are safe, and we won't allow ourselves to win.
We are trapped in the web of our own idealism, trying to fight an enemy that is trapped in the web of theirs. This is how kings and dictators are born, and, sad to say, we will all be cheering for ours within the next fifty years if this doesn't stop. (Which I don't believe it will, no matter how hard I try to champion reason—there are only, like, eight of us still capable of reading novel length books left in the world.)
So far, this thread jumps back and forth on the issue of free speech, but should this really be the main focus? Defending or attacking the right to the freedom of speech?
Some of the argument sounds as if free speech itself caused the incidents overseas. It did not.
A culture manipulated by religion, oppression, and fueled by hate did.
A group of bogus 'film makers' with complete disregard and disrespect to that religion and its fanatical followers did.
Governments who wish to use the video as a catalyst to further entice their violently fanatical activists did.
And the list marches on.
Free speech played a role. But its also the suppression of free speech, and liberty in general, that continues to enable totalitarian governments to gravitate their populations towards aggression. Its also cultures now so embedded with, and normalized to such violence, that such a video would simply escalate and further perpetuate violence.
Its easy to sit back here behind the safety and comfort of our keyboards. To go on and on about freedoms and whether some speech should be curtailed. To be disgruntled about the financial inconveniences resulting from the aftermath of the backlash. But we do not live under a regime of fanatical Islamic control. We cannot begin to empathize with, nor fully understand, the conditions that really spawned these uproars. We cannot really live through the mindset and the eyes of the people involved.
Instead, we take the arrogant notion that one of our own regarded philosophies, one of our own idiotic YouTube videos, could cause mass chaos around the world. While hundreds die as a result of the incitements, we grumble about not being able to 'pay our bills online' - as if that's even on the same scale as the suffering caused by these events. How noble. Then we go off topic and start debating false logic, poor analogies, and polarizing to different sides of the debate, as if any of this confronts the real issue.
Free speech, like any other form of freedom, comes with consequences. It comes with the idea that we will have to tolerate actions we do not like or agree with. Freedom of religion puts many people at odds, especially monotheistic forms of faith. Freedom of speech comes with it the right for the irresponsible, detestable, and moronic to speak their minds. Liberty inherently comes with the right for people to make poor decisions and do stupid things. These are the 'philosophical' sacrifices we make to allow these freedoms.
Now, not everyone around the world agrees with or even remotely abides to the US ideal of free speech. But instead of concentrating on the possible harm free speech could be causing, we should be paying attention to why when exercised for vicious intent, did it cause such turmoil. That is the true problem and one no one wishes to address. How do you solve that issue? How do you turn back years of fanatical doctrine and socialization that pushes people to react so ballistic to a stupid YouTube video. What can be done to dissolve the schism of people on one side bombing embassies, and people on the other content with simply flaming each other in the comments section? A complex problem.
And complex problems we tend to whole-heartedly avoid. Instead, we look for a convenient scape-goat, something we think we could possibly control, like free speech. But take the freedom of speech away, or even downsize it, and the real problems in the Middle East do not disappear. Free speech is not an issue over there, because in many countries, it does not exist. Take away free speech and we might not even be able to conduct this conversation. Take away free speech and the same methods used to incite violence overseas would no longer be able to be used to incite violence and action against our own oppressors. Theoretical, yes, but I don't remember the American Revolution being a peaceful transition. Nor the freedom of speech being added to our Bill of Rights an accident.
The state already continues to grow its police powers, its legal surveillance on citizens, its imprisonment of the population committing victimless crimes. A handful of companies control most of the media – whether in print, on TV, or on the Internet. These companies tend to align themselves with one of the established political parties. While a corporation can be sued for false advertisement, a "news" company cannot be punished for overtly lying and presenting fiction as fact to the American public. People lying might sound like free speech in action, but this is really the control and channeling of speech, of certain viewpoints and agendas while pushing most other speech off the mainstream radar.
Sure, people can still share the truth through public venues across the Internet, but corporate media has everyone's attention and are not threatened by the silent voices of truth. Four legitimate candidates run for president, two of them outside the Dems/GOP and highly qualified, but most people are not even aware those two candidates exist. That is no accident. That is the curtailment of free speech. You want to debate limiting speech for the reckless, but I say do not give government a way to legally take from you which its already attempting to take away behind closed doors.
The battleground to help the Middle East does not sit at the foot kicking the door shut on our freedom to speech. Do not be so naïve and arrogant to think that it does. There are many links that caused this chain of events, and the idiocy of a group of a-holes making a film only fit for YouTube, not free speech, and not the typical American citizen, is but one.
Well said. Unfortunately, those who complain about not being able to pay their bills online attempt to offer strawmen arguments about yelling Fire! in a theater while completely ignoring the heart of the problem. And, when you do try to explain it to them, they resort to name calling. Yes, how noble.
You and I are in near perfect agreement and I suspect the only reason you think I mean any of what you seem to think I mean or intended with the set up of my OP is because you didn't read all of my posts, or at least not very carefully, and certainly not in relation to the posts I responded to.
The phrase that comes to mind here is is art imitating life, or is life imitating art?
The other two phrases that come to mind are:
We cannot control people, places or things. We can only control our reaction to them.
Pause when agitated.
Like it or not, rightly or wrongly, America is being judged as much by its reaction as by the instigating video.
Do we really demonstrate "peace through strength" by allowing ourselves to be goaded into yet another war?
Did we not learn anything from 9/11, Iraq and Afghanistan?
Here are two more phrases that just popped into my mind.
"Stop, look and listen" is better than "Duck and cover."
I hope you are faring better with your Facebook campaign on this issue than here, shades.
if it makes me evil to say it then so be it,... judge me evil,.....
the middle eastern mind is a juvenile compared to the western mind,.... period. to say that the cultures don’t hold the same values is simplistic at best. they still stone women to death and practice honor killings. our own troops, when you speak to them off record will say that they are intellectually very hard to train because they think Ala should "will" the bullet to hit the target,.... its like trying to teach cooking to a small child that still expects the Mrs. Butterworth bottle to talk.
i do not hate the Semite,... but i do not expect of him what he culturally and intellectually cannot give,..... Einstein said it best,... "a fish may well be born a genius, but if he is judged only on his ability to climb a tree, he will go his whole life thinking himself stupid" ..........let me add that those who idiotically wonder why the fish cannot climb a tree may well even spend billions in dollars and thousands of lives to “help” the fish to learn to climb a tree,…. The works of monkeys and mermaids are no less valued one to the other,… but they are not at all the same….. The fish will still not be able to climb a tree…. Period.
Spend billions in foreign fish aid,….. Set up “free the fish funds”…. send in world organizations,… build schools, build shopping centers,……
The fish will become dependant upon your funding,… and he will grow fond of your goods in the shopping center,…… he will burn down the schools,....and he will still not be able to climb a tree,…. And he will resent being told that he should.
Spot on target, in fact you should be consulted by the Government on these things.
I live in a 'simplified' Muslim country, the people are great, really nice people (the Malaysians anyway, some of the Chinese are not so great, bu that's another 'difference' we can 'appreciate')
But after a while here I rapidly computed that God gave them a smaller ram chip memory and simplified operating system.
I call it the 3F version: Fishing, Farming and F**king.
And they excel at all of them, however, they are just not interested in being like the westerners.
Maybe they have seen how we are, and had the sense to stay as God made them?
An astonishing post, my friend!
The Malaysians prefer their traditional lifestyle to our patently flawed alternative. This leads you to 'compute' that they are less well endowed with intelligence? And your derivation requires the connivance of a spirit-being in ordaining the mental superiority of folks like you?
I hope you just misunderstood my comment.
They are no less endowed with intelligence, perhaps I should have said they are less enamoured with our way of living.
Malaysians are great people, but they just do not hold our values, and yes, the values they do hold are religious values, albeit not the same as mine, but nevertheless, values based upon a love of a god.
You assumed (I guess) that I held them as less worthy than 'us'.... wrong, in most ways their lives (in terms of enjoyment) is better.
If I did, it was eminently misunderstandable!
I'd like to spend more time in Malaysia. I've only managed 2 weeks in Kuala Lumpur so far.
well, just because we have free speech, we certainly should be mature enough to exercise that right without intentionally offending someone.
So let's start a list....
Wait, there are almost 7 billion people on the globe - any one of which could get violent if adequately offended... I better get a couple more paper pads...
1. Don't offend the Muslims
2. Don't offend the Christians
6, 973, 462. Don't offend the red-headed midget with bad teeth
come on guys, I can't do this alone
Ok, right, I'm not qualified to make these decisions about what is safe "Free speech"
So, let's make another list... "Who can we trust to make the list of unacceptable free speech?"
1. the Supreme Court
hmmm. I'm stuck. Help me out here. Who can we trust to make our list of unacceptable free speech?
well, feel free to chime in when you think of someone.
Good point... man, whew... you are right. I forgot about how absolutely certain it is that people will die if I say something bad about red-headed midgets with bad teeth. The buildings start burning and the deaths begin... every time that comes up.
That is such a perfect and well-thought-out analogy to the situation in the middle east A) over the last 1500 years, B) over the last 100 years, C) over the last 30 years, and D) over the last 11 years. The comparison is perfect, spot on, super well thought out, deep even. Because, I mean, red-headed midgets with bad teeth have all the right corollaries to the massive, global events, charged with geography, history, theology, economics, and political blah blah going back to biblical times, much less WW II, the various hostage crisis and crap in the 60s and 70s, and 9/11. Thanks for bringing that awesome perspective to this thread, we are all super enlightened by that incredible and empty exercise in logical fallacy.
ok,... so I hate karaoke,.. I HATE IT,... I’m offended by it,... it incenses my rage,... I am ENRAGED,... driven to VIOLENCE,.....
does this mean that I can blow up a school or market and burn down half a neighborhood,.... because of my anger???????
will we curtail karaoke because of how it offends ME????
will news pundits decry the social irresponsibility of those who crooned the karaoke that offended me????
so what your saying to me is that because I am willing to burn down the town over what ever might piss me off that the whole world should acquiesce to my wishes?????
he who makes loudest most violent display wins??????....................... really????????????????
how will the world grow up if we do not expect it to?... or will we always give our milk money to the school yard bully???????????????????????????
And don’t give me the BS about how my hating karaoke doesn’t compare with a Muslims deep sense of religious belief,…… poppy cock!……….. Religion of peace my arse,…. No more than Christianity is a religion of peace,… I say this as a Christian,… an honest one.
If I were offended by the worlds treatment of the pope or priests in comedy routines would that justify murder?????????????
No…………. it wouldn’t………… we preach a great deal about how beliefs should not be promulgates at the point of a sword or gun,… these fanatics do it at the threat of violence,…..
And as long as we continue to behave like mindless sheep and herd ourselves socially/morally/economically into a corner where our perceived safety will seal our fate as the wolfs dinner,…. They will continue to herd us as such.
i refuse to be sheep,...... so should you
While I certainly enjoy an emotive burst like that, being prone to them myself, I must go straight to the part where you say, "And don’t give me the BS about how my hating karaoke doesn’t compare with a Muslims deep sense of religious belief,…… poppy cock!"
You couldn't help put that in there because you knew, at least somewhere beneath the delightful wave of emotions, that you were arguing from a position of logical fallacy—often the demise of the best impassioned diatribes. That's why we need a good balance of logos along with our ethos and pathos. Calling something "poppy cock" doesn't make it poppy cock anymore than me calling myself "thin and fit" transforms this big beer belly I've got going over here into something you want to see hanging out down at the beach.
1. I never said Islam was a religion of peace.
2. If I had said that, someone should have called me on it for being the red herring that it represents.
3. The issue is not simply confined to HERE in the U.S., where the 1st Amendment applies.
4. There are situational restrictions on the 1st Amendment in the U.S. (precedents set for good reasons, already mentioned).
5. They don't seem to care about our 1st Amendment rights in those other countries that aren't the U.S. It's almost like they are... like, other countries.
6. Any time someone asserts that a single, simple answer can always apply to every situation, regardless of any context or circumstantial nuance, no matter what, always, end of conversation, period, it presents, to my mind anyway, an unwillingness to think and face difficult problems that might not perfectly align with existing solutions. One-size-fits-all doesn't always fit, even if 99.9999999999999% of the time it does. Every so often, custom, creative solutions have to be found.
Don't get me wrong. I love having principles, and I believe we should stand on them. However, if what you are doing keeps getting the same results, and you don't like those results, you should consider doing something different. That's the difference between thought and fundamentalism.
couldn’t agree with you more for the most part
"arguing from a position of logical fallacy" bit a little shallow though,....
please do not try and apply logic and reason to the situation of middle east violence,.... logic and reason, as our western minds might define it, has little or no relevance there.
I’m just saying that for every action there is a reaction,... in physics the reaction is mathematically proportional,.... in the middle east it is not so,... it is measured in terms of what one can get away with and get those most out of,... the most bang for your buck if you will,... pun intended.
and while I agree with you that over simplifying things can be detrimental to a situation and at best displaying a lack of understanding for what you phrase the "context or circumstantial nuance",..... unduly complicating a matter by vomiting up a thesaurus and convoluting a situation to the point of hopelessness is just as detrimental to finding a solution,... and at worst,... dishonest for no other reason than looking smarter than the bully,.... while still getting your arse kicked by him.
you have still handed over your milk money to the thug who slammed your locker door next to your head with the implication of you being next. … what would you say is the “logical” course from there going to be???…. You going to keep handing the school bully your lunch money until A) you have none left to give him or B) you decide your like to keep your lunch money and are willing to fight to do so. Your call.
in short,.. (and I am vertically challenged, I can make "short" references).... people do what they can get away with,.. an "end justifies the means" attitude,..... in the west we behave like this until the age of about 4,... then our parents spank our arses and we grow up and learn how to act.
the worlds societies at large are no different,... convoluting the proscess with a thesaurus and ego will make it no less the truth. Call it over simplification if you must,… but they call it simple truth for a reason.
Using your playground bully analogy:
So you think that if I go over to the wackjob kid on the far side of the playground, the psychotic unstable one everyone knows just goes apesh!t if you say almost anything to him, but definitely will if you say, "Your Mom" to him because that's been proven to happen repeatedly... you say that if I go over there and say, "Your Mom," to him, and he attacks me (or someone else), HE is a "bully?"
You admit you know he's a psycho, unstable and unreasonable. You confess that you know he is not easily reasoned with, if at all. You totally know what happens when people say "your Mom" to him. And yet, you feel there is absolutely nothing wrong with provoking him for no other reason than, well, just because you can? How does that possibly constitute "handing over your milk money?" And more incredibly, how does that make HIM the bully?
Your reasoning is simply bewildering to me.You are claiming free speech protections so you can bait and taunt the messed up kid. And then you complain about the damage he does, even though you knew it was going to happen before you opened your mouth.
Even if the Middle East were part of America, I'm pretty sure that's not what the founding fathers had in mind.
you have made your point and mind perfectly,... thank you.
the middle east as a whole is nothing better than the total wackjob "messed up kid" on the play ground that goes ape-nuts crazy over the phrase "your mom"
"he's a psycho, unstable and unreasonable"
"he is not easily reasoned with, if at all"
good job,..... youve made OUR point perfectly,..... now remove jr psyco from the playground before he hurts the regular kids who have a chance to become productive adults............. ie; remove the middle eastern mindset from the adults table and force him to sit at the kiddie table with the rest of the children until A) he grows up or B) we dicide what to do with him if he demonstrates no ability to grow up.
like wise, we should, as western adult grown up minds,.... STOP SITTING AT THE KIDDIE TABLE. we denegrate ourselves and set unrealistic goals for our subordinates. while children have the luxery of behaving as children, we do not.
How do you propose to do this? Western culture (Christian culture for the most part prior to the rise in secularism over the last 200 or so years) has been at odds with them since the Crusades and beyond. So, that pretty eliminates item "A" on your list. So, we are on to item "B." So what are we to do? Ramp up the occupation? Conquest and colonization? That failed for at least two centuries of crusaders and for the Soviets in more recent history, not to mention most Americans are crying about the cost in money and lives after the last decade we've been over there. So, should we nuke them, go for total genocide/ethnic cleansing and just get it over with? What solution do you suggest?
How do we "denegrate ourselves" in particular? Surely you aren't saying that taunting the psychotic, violent child and goading him to violence in the name of free speech is what a grown up would do to solve this centuries old, complicated problem. So what do you mean by that?
And what unrealistic goals are you talking about? Who are our subordinates?
let me say up front that i find this conversation, and the side i have chosen of it, to be delicious beyond words,... i love getting to play bad cop, as i get to do it so seldom.....
I do not propose that we ramp up or even continue the occupation of the middle east,… on the contrary, I propose that we cant possibly get out of the middle east fast enough,… we should be departing the middle east so fast as it to be called a sonic exodus! The entire region should be shitting peach seeds worried that the nukes are coming,… it should look like Saigon version 2.0 with choppers on the roof tops.
Just get out!… take our western culture, and western media,… take our values, morals and ethics,.. Take our preposterous social engineering experiments,… and just get out.
take our medicine and our vaccines, our foreign aid, our food shipments, our charities, our marketed products, our embassy/targets and our military troops holding the lid on anarchy,…. And just leave.
It is what they want after all. They want us to leave.
And really who can blame them. We, as westerners, have stomped in heavy handed to dominate them through force and economics, imposing our values system upon a people who not only have no desire for it but no capacity for it.
Will it leave a power vacuum? Yes,… who cares. We’ve already laid the ground work for this mess and it cant be undone,.. Embrace that truth and accept it. Before Bush destabilized the middle east we had reliable tyrants in place that the US had been propping up for years in exchange for oil,… and what of it,… it worked didn’t it? Yes….. Until we started getting high and mighty with our values and how we should inflict them on the people of the middle east,.. Who,… I must say again,… didn’t and do not want them.
We polluted their culture and perverted their government all because we sought to assuage our guilt over having coveted their oil.
And that, in a nut shell is the entire convoluted problem boiled down to 1 tiny 3 letter word,….. Oil.
If their were no oil in the middle east we would not be having this conversation,…. There is no oil in most of Africa,… therefore the world does not care that Africans are butchered,… we barely keep outpost sized embassies there,… we hand out vaccines to starving children in Africa so they wont infect the western world with communicable diseases while were on safari. Starvation is not catching,…. They can die of starvation without endangering us.
“How do we "denigrate ourselves" in particular? Surely you aren't saying that taunting the psychotic, violent child and goading him to violence in the name of free speech is what a grown up would do. So what do you mean by that?”
In the spirit of the school yard analogy,… in the 21st century, the age of communication,… the school yard rules have changed. where once you could tell an off color joke re; a “momma” to a couple friends and the playground psychotic whack job would be none the wiser,.. Now your words might be recorded on a cell phone, you may have texted the remark and it got forwarded, then going viral,… nothing we do or say is small any more,…. Behold the power of the tweet (just ask Anthony wiener) And in some ways the western world is very VERY slow to grow up to the responsibility of this new “E-play ground”,……
However,…. That does NOT mean that the whack job over by the teeter-totters has the right to hear about the txt two weeks later and randomly walk up to a total stranger in gym glass and knife him to death because some insensitive prick in English lit 2 campuses’ over txtd an off color joke about a “momma” of no relation to the whackjob….
Responsibility goes both ways.
and perhaps we should ask if the psychotic whack job should be on the play ground?????? hmmmmmm??????..... at some point i think more than a time out should be in order?
All I’m asking is that we assign blame appropriately,… yea,… the tard monkey that made and released the video should be responsible in his actions,… but so should the “people” in the middle east who decide it is perfectly logical to blow up embassies’ and burn down half their universe, murder innocent people and create a general havoc,… because of a video.
If I stabbed my neighbor and shot his wife, then burned down the county courthouse because I was offended by a video of a comedian making jokes about priest sexual abuse or denigrating the pope…. They would call me crazy, put me in a psych ward and then in jail,………. And rightfully so.
i know,... i still didnt state how we remove ourselves to the apropriate adult/kiddie tables,..... i enjoyed my rant,... thank you for allowing me that.
ask me how,.... i'm still mulling it over,.... oh yea,.... GET OUT!... then quit trading with them,... PERIOD. eventualy they will see the wisdom of playing nice in order to trade oil for rice,.... and we will see the wisdom of shutting our moraly bankrupt mouths and just tading in products and not values.
I am glad you are enjoying the exchange. I am as well. I confess that, when you attacked my word choices in an earlier response, as if I should apologize for precise and careful diction, I was prepared to write this off as another typical Internet experience. And while I realize your statement above was not intended to be conciliatory in that regard, I'm glad I chose to pursue your points rather than respond to the attacks on my style of writing or to attack yours, as this exchange has been interesting.
That said, back to the meat of the matter:
While I have to say calling for Vietnam-style exodus is probably not often going to be useful in debates, I think I know what you are trying to say.
I will say, however, I think a big part of the problem is that "they" don't all want us to leave. Some of them might actually qualify to sit at the "adult's table" that you were speaking of. Millions of them, actually. They read, they want to not have a donkey-cart culture. They like air conditioning and really just want their damn kid to get a job and support himself. Maybe a vacation to Australia to see a kangaroo. Not much to ask for, really.
And, those people have been helping us for decades. They've lost family in the cause of bringing the "promise" of freedom to their part of the world. You would have us just tell them, "Yeah, I know what we've been saying. But, well, I know we only committed for X-period of time anyway, but, now, yeah, sorry. We have to go."
I'm not saying we should stay or that we should have any loyalty to the people who gave us their lives and their trust; maybe we shouldn't: I'm just not sure abandoning the people we promised to help will reduce the number of people willing to wear explosive underwear on airplanes.
No capacity to fathom it, or no capacity to make it universal in a place where only half of society wants to be free, while the other half believes that donkey carts, burkas, power outages and all the stuff that mullah has to say are signs of Allah's providence?
This is you saying, "Yeah, F---- all those people who allied with us. They're on their own. Bad plan, us. Bad luck them. Eye for eye is a bitch, sorry it didn't work out people who believed in us and our ideals.
No, it didn't work. Things that work don't fail. I don't want to go back and rehash the whole crusades thing again, but, I would like to point out that we've been "making reliable tyrants" for a long time. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. It usually doesn't, but, we do have a history of intervening for a while and getting stuff we like, as have other prominent cultures over the last craptons of time.
Are you familiar with the Ottoman Empire?
If you aren't, it's a fun history. Check it out if you get time.
Actually, I think what you said here is really, really, really important and very, very spot on. However, I think it doesn't boil down to ONE word. It boils down to two, and between them, there is a huge world of difference.
One is "oil." Yes, we like that here. Have for a long time. It is modern gold. Brings with it everything you'd expect gold to bring. Super charged word for anyone willing to think about it. I am with you here.
The word you skipped over really fast is "guilt." That word is different yet just as powerful. You argue, at least as I see it, or at least as I predict it, that we should not apologize for it. We took it. F--- those a-holes. Ride a donkey and shut the f--- up, primitive! Right?
Not even saying that's wrong. Our culture is obviously better, since we get to sit at the grown ups table. Screw those guys, right? (Even though a lot of them want to sit with us and talk about big-boy stuff. Etc. Sucks to be them.)
True. If there were no issues with gravity, think how amazing our space program would be. If there were no calorie-to-output ratios, I would not be fat and could drink all day without consequence while enjoying a daily regimen of Taco Bell and Cold Stone Creamery. But alas, reality is, as they say, ... not as convenient as we would have made it if we got to have any input.
Not gonna argue this. I very roughly agree. I think you have some pretty solid points in that. More complicated than presented, but, I'm willing to let that go for now since, as it relates to this particular argument, it's something of a red herring in the end (I know you don't like when I point out fallacy, but I can't help it. It's a habit of mine having spent so much time studying rhetoric, and I do apologize. I just don't like to waste time on them, as my posts are usually too long to begin with.)
Your style is fun with this sort of thing!
Yeah, that didn't happen. It was done on purpose, as you admit in the next part of this. I do concede accidents can happen (and genuine free speech I completely defend), but, I think it is germane to this conversation to point out that the first incidence of "oh my god, my cartoon got people killed" can be an argument about free speech, but not the fifth, tenth and fortieth time, especially when produced by middle eastern immigrants fresh upon our shores with a stack of chips on their shoulders as high as Everest.
I agree. As you said, BOTH ways. In fact, I feel I must, in light of my previous remarks, even take your own point farther in this nuanced moment and say, that if the "off color" remark was indeed simply off-color, a genuine and original idea conveyed innocently yet in the spirit of a deeper idea that truly mattered, and somehow it was twisted/interpreted in some horrible way by a defensive culture that has elements seeking any possible reason to take offense, then we should defend that speech rigorously.
My point is and has been all along that there is a difference between pissing people off with stuff we know pisses them off just because "we are free to piss people off if we want" regardless of consequences, and with speaking ideas that matter and should be placed into the human discourse.
Easy to say. Glib, works with the child analogy. Not realistic in an adult, geo-political real world. I wish it were.
Yep. Kinda the crux of the problem in the end, ain't it? At least you are now willing to concede that the instigator has responsibility that isn't simply wiped away by declarations of "free speech." I feel like we finally understand one another in a more carefully thought out way.
Yes, they would. You would go away. However, if you had done this twenty six other times, or a thousand other times, every time one of those jokes was told, you going on another rampage, without fail, always, at some point a causal relationship would have been made abundantly clear to literally everyone in the world, and—if because of some really complex history dating back a couple thousand years, several religions, multiple kingdoms and colonial empires, made it so that nobody could really lock you down despite your murderous ways—then, those comedians should probably start being held accountable for intentionally provoking you. At some point, society has to look at reality and go, "Wow, dude, what were you thinking? You know that always gets people killed, and we have no way of stopping it... that we are willing to do."
Or the Chinese will take over and try, and we'll see down the road how good an idea it was to concede the territory, despite half the population or more wanting our way of life. Probably the Chinese will end up just like we did, like the Soviets, the crusaders... ultimately beaten down by the unending dedication to "an eye for an eye," but perhaps not until those same Chinese have used the region to conquer the globe just like all it's previous exploiters have. Not sure that's a great idea.
exactly shadesbreath,............ well done.
we agree on far more than we disagree,... the world is a brutal and twisted place,... and thank the heavens (if they exist) that each man only spends a finite time on this earth to change and affect it and be tortured by it,.... imagine the carnage we could cause and endure if we lived 200 years each! uhg
the middle east is to us westerners like a beautiful tiger,... it is so soft and alluring looking,... we have an overwhelming desire to reach out and touch it,... even though logic reason and all good sense tell us not to,... 1000's of years of history tell us not to,... those previously bitten and torn to shreds warn us not to,......................... but we touch it.
and stupid foolish westerner brings back the bloody stump that once was a hand and screams to the heavens in pain,... blaming the tiger for the infraction,.... when the tiger was only being a tiger.
as to guilt its a tricky thing,... it puts buts in seats in tent revivals‘, fills collection plates at mass,... It builds homeless shelters and food banks,… and cathedrals,… and it can also hound us to the edge of reason and sanity......
what i meant to convey in referring to western guilt is that it seems to me (such as i am) that at least up until the last 100+ years ago we were more intellectually honest about it,... we concurred a land, took what we wanted because we could, a might makes right attitude,... Waving a cross in the air while we slaughtered our foe came into fashion in the last 1500 years or so,.... soon enough over time, because the west became wealthy enough and comfortable enough to have the luxury of a high moral tone,... the cross waving became more important,...... our ever evolving ethics began to get crosswise of our actions,.... so rather than change our treatment of these foreign lands at the core, we simply re-named what we were doing.
where once we concurred a land and raped it of its resources,... now we "liberated" a land and gave the people "freedom",... We gave them the freedom to trade with us (or starve) ….the freedom to adopt democracy (or loose foreign aid)… buy western goods/fashions (or have your TV trained children hate you)……………….. Repackaged rape and pillage,… nothing more.
ah my hear sighs,... how i miss the olden days of honest debauchery.
peace my friend,... if mankind cannot know peace as a people,... man can know it in his heart,... and that is where peace starts. -jack
I like your summary, especially the part about having "your TV trained children hate you." That is an excellent way of putting that.
It's a mess, and one that I cannot fathom how we can extricate ourselves. Especially since even if there were a way, there will always be those who don't think we should, either by reason of the wealth that can be had from it, or now by the guilt for what we have done providing the impetus that we should go try to fix it somehow. Effective arguments will be made by some on the sides of those, and, well, it will probably remain a mess for another thousand years just as it has for the last four of five thousand... unless a really, really big bomb goes off and shoves us all back a few thousand years or more.
Practice your archery skills just in case it all goes wrong.
Great thread Shadesbreath:
I saw this yesterday and thought it would be somewhat relevant to the convo!
Rampage in Bangladesh over Facebook Quran image
Hundreds of Muslim mobs went on the rampage in a Buddhist-majority village in southeastern Bangladesh following an alleged desecration of Muslim holy book of Quran on social network Facebook.
"About one thousand angry mobs vandalised and set ablaze at least 13 Buddhist houses and five temples in Merunloa village in Cox's Bazar district," Faruk Ahmed, a senior police officer, told Xinhua from Cox's Bazar district, some 391 km southeast of capital Dhaka.
http://www.rediff.com/news/report/rampa … 121001.htm
"The district's police chief ZA Morshed told Xinhua, "We have tightended security measures after miscreants vandalized two temples."
It just does not make sense, how can a protest over religious offense result in the desecration of temples?
We will do whatever we want to the religious beliefs of others, but will kill for ours! There is no diplomacy with minds like this, they will never be satiated unless all of humanity agrees with their beliefs, and within their own belief systems there is disagreement.
thats why culturaly these folks will sit at the kiddie table until they grow up, learn to behave, and can sit with the adults at the table with the breakable china,.. until then they will eat from paper plates with the meat cut up for themk, and they'll get what mom dishes them.
It doesn't make sense. It's a catch-22 of worst order, and it's been going on since the beginning of that particular faith.
I think, in the end, the only hope (and I admit its probably only hope) is that, as Stclairjack pointed out, there is a generation that is being "TV raised" that seems to have seen an alternative lifestyle that doesn't include weekly rampages and killings.
I do think we must believe in our principles. And while I'm not really a super big fan of the idea that we should go turn the whole "place" into a glass parking lot, I am not so opposed to the idea of living by example. If that example happens to leak out over the Internet, images of women serving as Secretary of State, running companies, sitting on high courts, doing brain surgeries, etc.... well, hopefully it will keep building from there over time. It's not going to change, they aren't going to "grow up" as stclairjack puts it, over night. They haven't for century upon century. However, now, America is kind of looking good at least from the standpoint of freedom for our citizens (except for those we still dictate marriage rules to etc., but we are even working on that). So, we have to hope that the "city upon a hill" thing works out for us, even if in our pursuit of freedom for everyone makes Winthrop roll in his grave, lol.
We are free. That is why I get so pissed off when people abuse our freedoms (free speech in particular here) for no purpose other than to piss off people who aren't free, who are indoctrinated from birth into vengeful religion and given no opportunity for an education that might free them from it. Pissing them off isn't going to unravel all that indoctrination. Only time will. Mothers with hope for a better world will raise children with hope. We just have to try not to blow it by showing how stupid we really are with crap like that dumb video.
by Jeff Berndt4 years ago
So we have freedom of speech in the US, but we also have a crime called "incitement to riot."If you want to commit that crime, what you need to do is get up in front of a group of people, and say some words....
by Michael Collins3 years ago
Do we (Americans) have freedom of speech? If so should Joan Rivers’s apologies for what she said? Can we learn from this and other people who say what they think without considering the consequences while you have...
by TMMason5 years ago
-"ALAMOGORDO, N.M. (The Blaze/AP) — A state district judge Thursday ordered an Alamogordo man to immediately take down a billboard that implies his ex-girlfriend had an abortion.As we reported earlier this...
by Steven Escareno5 years ago
Well I was just reading this off Yahoo a minute ago, and it seems a guy chooses to exercise his free speech rights in a rather colorful way. According to this guy's story, his ex-girlfriend gets an abortion, so he...
by janesix4 years ago
by James Smith4 years ago
"Natural rights are rights which are "natural" in the sense of "not artificial, not man-made", as in rights deriving from deontic logic, from human nature, or from the edicts of a god. They are...
Copyright © 2016 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.