|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
 Posted - 09/09/2010 : 16:15:52 [Permalink]
|
Yeah, Obama's response is idiotic.
What he should have said is that this person has an incredible following of almost 100 people, he is irrelevant and probably delusional, is exhibiting attention seeking behavior, and then he should have chastised the fucking ratings whore media for continuing to put the lunatic on air or talk about him.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 09/09/2010 : 16:44:52 [Permalink]
|
And now, Terry Jones is claiming that because Imam Rauf has agreed to move his Islamic Cultural Center further away from Ground Zero, he (Jones) won't burn any Korans.
Rauf's group is denying that any such deal exists, and is saying that they've only agreed to meet with Jones, on Saturday, in New York.
So Terry Jones is now effectively saying that he was holding the Koran hostage, and he's lying about the result already. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 09/09/2010 : 17:04:20 [Permalink]
|
Dude:
The only response to that is a giant "fuck you!" to the people telling you to shut up. Everyone has a right to speak, and even the right to tell people to shut up, but it runs counter to the intent and spirit of free speech if you tell a person you don't agree with to stop speaking. |
No it doesn't. The right to tell people who don't have to shut up to shut up doesn't run counter to the intent of free speech at all. It has no force of law and road runs both ways. We aren't obligated to listen to or even be nice to every wing-nut out there. And yeah, we can tell them to shut up which is as much of a statement and an exercise in free speech as the right to blather stupidities.
Dude:
...and then he should have chastised the fucking ratings whore media for continuing to put the lunatic on air or talk about him. |
You mean he should have told them that they should have shut up about this?
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 09/09/2010 : 17:20:40 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
And now, Terry Jones is claiming that because Imam Rauf has agreed to move his Islamic Cultural Center further away from Ground Zero, he (Jones) won't burn any Korans.
Rauf's group is denying that any such deal exists, and is saying that they've only agreed to meet with Jones, on Saturday, in New York.
So Terry Jones is now effectively saying that he was holding the Koran hostage, and he's lying about the result already.
|
Ah. The lunatic is looking for a way out while trying to save face. Mission impossible... |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 09/09/2010 : 17:39:03 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Originally posted by Dave W.
And now, Terry Jones is claiming that because Imam Rauf has agreed to move his Islamic Cultural Center further away from Ground Zero, he (Jones) won't burn any Korans.
Rauf's group is denying that any such deal exists, and is saying that they've only agreed to meet with Jones, on Saturday, in New York.
So Terry Jones is now effectively saying that he was holding the Koran hostage, and he's lying about the result already.
|
Ah. The lunatic is looking for a way out while trying to save face. Mission impossible...
|
"Great minds think alike." So do the not-so-great ones:
Westboro Baptist Church to burn Qurans if Dove doesn't
By Chad Smith
Staff writer
Published: Thursday, September 9, 2010 at 2:42 p.m.
Last Modified: Thursday, September 9, 2010 at 5:20 p.m.
Westboro Baptist Church, the small Topeka, Kan., church that pickets funerals of American soldiers to spread its message that God is punishing the country for being tolerant of homosexuals, has vowed to hold a Quran burning if Gainesville's Dove World Outreach Center calls its off.
"WBC burned the Koran once – and if you sissy brats of Doomed america bully Terry Jones and the Dove World Outreach Center until they change their plans to burn that blasphemous tripe called the Koran, then WBC will burn it (again), to clearly show you some things," the church announced in a news release this week.
|
This ain't over yet; not until the nutcakes get it out of their systems.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 09/09/2010 : 18:07:52 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Dude:
The only response to that is a giant "fuck you!" to the people telling you to shut up. Everyone has a right to speak, and even the right to tell people to shut up, but it runs counter to the intent and spirit of free speech if you tell a person you don't agree with to stop speaking. |
No it doesn't. The right to tell people who don't have to shut up to shut up doesn't run counter to the intent of free speech at all. It has no force of law and road runs both ways. We aren't obligated to listen to or even be nice to every wing-nut out there. And yeah, we can tell them to shut up which is as much of a statement and an exercise in free speech as the right to blather stupidities.
Dude:
...and then he should have chastised the fucking ratings whore media for continuing to put the lunatic on air or talk about him. |
You mean he should have told them that they should have shut up about this?
|
Wanting to silence others isn't contrary to the intent of free speech? Really? I don't get it.
And where do you get "shut up" from "chastise"? He should have told them that what they are doing is wrong, that they weren't living up to any meaningful journalistic standard, and that while tabloids have a place in our culture they shouldn't refer to themselves as "news".
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
 Posted - 09/09/2010 : 19:06:06 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
Originally posted by Kil
Dude:
The only response to that is a giant "fuck you!" to the people telling you to shut up. Everyone has a right to speak, and even the right to tell people to shut up, but it runs counter to the intent and spirit of free speech if you tell a person you don't agree with to stop speaking. |
No it doesn't. The right to tell people who don't have to shut up to shut up doesn't run counter to the intent of free speech at all. It has no force of law and road runs both ways. We aren't obligated to listen to or even be nice to every wing-nut out there. And yeah, we can tell them to shut up which is as much of a statement and an exercise in free speech as the right to blather stupidities.
Dude:
...and then he should have chastised the fucking ratings whore media for continuing to put the lunatic on air or talk about him. |
You mean he should have told them that they should have shut up about this?
|
Wanting to silence others isn't contrary to the intent of free speech? Really? I don't get it.
And where do you get "shut up" from "chastise"? He should have told them that what they are doing is wrong, that they weren't living up to any meaningful journalistic standard, and that while tabloids have a place in our culture they shouldn't refer to themselves as "news".
|
Reaching aaaaaand reaching... Nice try though.
I'm not even going to comment on your second response. (The mind boggles.)
As for the "shut up" part, it's really no different than telling someone to "get out of town" or "when did you go off your meds" and so on. And sometimes, it's really okay to tell someone that what they are saying (or doing) is grossly irresponsible and they really should knock it off. Duh! It's a statement to make a point. Sometimes the point is taken. Usually not. It's unlikely to actually silence anyone because there is no rule of law forcing the person being told to shut up to shut up. Get it? |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 09/09/2010 : 20:35:30 [Permalink]
|
kil said:
| It's unlikely to actually silence anyone because there is no rule of law forcing the person being told to shut up to shut up. Get it? |
At risk of sounding like I'm being insulting for the sake of insult.....
Are you sober and not taking pain meds, and have you checked your blood sugar recently? Because you aren't making sense.
Where, exactly, did I ever say that telling people to shut up was going to be effective at shutting them up? I said it was contrary to the intent of free speech. If you want to silence a person (not that you can) then it seems to me that you don't value the right of speech for all people equally. And if there is enough pressure, enough people telling you to shut up, some people might just shut up out of fear. That is contrary to the value of free speech, even if it isn't backed by force of law.
| As for the "shut up" part, it's really no different than telling someone to "get out of town" or "when did you go off your meds" and so on. |
No. You are wrong. Being a dick, or an insulting asshole, it not equivalent to wanting to silence other people.
| And sometimes, it's really okay to tell someone that what they are saying (or doing) is grossly irresponsible and they really should knock it off. Duh! |
And this is the reason why not all speech is protected. Clearly you can't allow people to sell snake oil as a cancer cure, incite others to violence, or yell "fire!" in a crowded room. You are confusing two distinct issues here.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
 Posted - 09/09/2010 : 20:45:01 [Permalink]
|
Okay Dude. Let's try this from another direction. If I were to tell Fred Phelps to "shut the fuck up" in a counter protest while he is yelling "God hates fags," would you defend my right to do that?
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 09/09/2010 : 20:47:18 [Permalink]
|
Dude:
Are you sober and not taking pain meds, and have you checked your blood sugar recently? Because you aren't making sense. |
Well. You are predictable. I'll give you that...
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 09/09/2010 : 21:17:33 [Permalink]
|
Yep.
But I'd still criticise you for the sentiment... If you want the right to call phelps a bigoted, racist, hatemongering asshole, you have to grant him the right to say that his imaginary deity hates gays. If you were to counterprotest a phelps family outing I'm sure you could find something better than "shut the fuck up asshole!" to yell back at him.
I'm sure I have told people to shut up, and I'm sure I'll probably do it again, but it is an emotional response or a response to things like personal insults. The idea of telling a person they should not protest, dissent, or otherwise exercise their right to free speech is different.
This retard here in FL who wants to burn quorans, no matter what you think of him, he has the right to protest. We should have just ignored him, let him set his fire, then charged him with violating his county's fire codes (because, apparently, his county has a law restricting outdoor burning. FL has a problem with wildfires too, not just CO and CA.).
Instead many on the political left here seems to be burning to try and pressure him into self censoring his speech. As stated, I also think Obama and Gates asking him to not stage his little protest is inappropriate. Those two could be seen as having the force of government on their side, and neither one of them has any fucking business telling anyone not to stage a peaceful protest. Their response should have been to ignore the guy, or to explain that in the US all people have the right to speak their minds, even when they are stupid, illiterate, and hate filled people.
I don't understand how anyone can think pressuring an opponent to silence is a good thing.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 09/09/2010 : 21:26:18 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Dude:
Are you sober and not taking pain meds, and have you checked your blood sugar recently? Because you aren't making sense. |
Well. You are predictable. I'll give you that...
|
I'm really not understanding how you have misunderstood what I'm saying here.
Also, you started it:
Reaching aaaaaand reaching... Nice try though.
I'm not even going to comment on your second response. (The mind boggles.)
|
and this little strawman changing chastise into "shut up":
You mean he should have told them that they should have shut up about this?
|
So don't bitch at me about being rude if you aren't going to be civil. Just sayin.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 09/09/2010 : 22:32:36 [Permalink]
|
Dude:
you have to grant him the right to say that his imaginary deity hates gays. |
Oh good grief! And he has to grant me the right to tell him to shut the fuck up. It might not be clever, but it's straightforward. Hidden in the alternatives that you have offered the sentiment is really the same. We really would like him to shut the fuck up and go away. That you can single out two words as actually having a different intent than the use of every other insult simply means you are in denial about what it is we really would like Phelps to do, or we wouldn't be there protesting. And you are lying to yourself if you think otherwise.
Dude:
and this little strawman changing chastise into "shut up |
Not a strawman. Chastising the media for being stupid and irresponsible is the same as wanting the media to have not focused on the story. And so it can be assumed, based on what we wished they had not done that further reporting of this story or a story of this kind is also stupid and irresponsible. In other words, we would have preferred it that they had shut the fuck up. And we would prefer it if they would continue to shut the fuck up. Just like the above reply, it distills down to the same thing, and if you don't think so, you are lying to yourself.
There is no difference in out shouting a protester, which is done often in protests, and wanting to silence a protester. The result is same. Both sides are protected. The intent of the first amendment has not been violated nor would it be if we were to admit what we really would like Fred Phelps, Jones, and the media to do if we are being honest with ourselves. I would absolutely defend Phelps right to protest. But again, if a piano dropped on his head I wouldn't weep for him. Because that would permanently silence him. And I have not violated the intent of the first amendment by thinking that or by saying it out loud, or writing it as I have just done.
No amount of telling someone to shut up violates the intent of the first amendment because that sentiment is as much a protest as anything else is. Speech is protected. Period.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 09/10/2010 : 02:41:20 [Permalink]
|
According to a dutch newssource (nu.nl, a news aggregator), AP decided in advance not to publish pictures of burning Korans that Jones plans to send around if he goes through with his plans. They will not publish the photos because the burning is offensive to Muslims. This is of course again a feat of incompetent reasoning.
There is a large number of reasons to not publish the pictures. That the event really is a non-event is the most important one. That is might endanger troops in Afghanistan could be another.
But that it might be offensive is a horrible reason. If Jones is going to burn Korans, this is a thing that happened. It's reality and you cannot decide not to show this reality because it offends people. If reality offends you, tough. |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Burning the Koran: how stupid is this?
