How does the World view America these days?

[Adieu]

 

Why is it scary that people have guns?

 

Because they're fatal weapons being carried around in public...? Because it's easy to use them for intimidation...? Because you can easily buy them at a gun show and not get them registered (like a few people I know have done)...? Because they're so easy to get that irresponsible people end up with them in their pockets regularly...? Because I've been held hostage, robbed and kept at gunpoint by criminals (who acquired guns from legitimate gun shops) twice in my life when I committed no wrong except being in the wrong place at the wrong time...? Take your pick I guess.

 

 

Your food is much more likely to kill you than a gun.

Chen, I have to respectfully and deeply disagree with you here. Exactly which parts of the TPP do you find troubling, and which parts positive? I imagine this might be a difficult question to answer since neither you or I, nor congress, can read the majority of the agreement*, but I'm curious.

 

 

*and I refuse to accept an argument from ignorance here. "We don't know it's bad so it must be fine" isn't OK - had to say it since that's how I've been countered on this subject before.

 

increased trade is positive. if we have to fix some bullshit they slipped into it in the future so be it.

[luke viia]

They cannot amend the bill if it is given fast track authority, that's my issue. It has to receive a simple yes/no vote as-is, and they have 90 days to get it done, which is not enough time to review 23+ chapters of a massive all-encompassing trade agreement. The agreement itself is blatantly unconstitutional, in part because of the expanded ISDS clauses I just mentioned, which I hope you've read about.

 

I'm not here to convince you guys though, this is just something that affects "how the world sees America." Stick to your guns and we'll see what happens, I guess.

 

Back to discussing the danger of cartoons.

 

And as for that food comment... we're not talking about food. Your genetics are more likely to kill you, your car is more likely to kill you, the neighbor's dog is probably more likely to kill you - and none of that has shit to do with our discussion, which never had the question "What's the most likely thing you can die from and should we ban it?"

Edited May 9, 2015 by luke viia

[LimpyLoo]

 

 

 

 

I think the whole draw-the-prophet thing was brilliant and people need to start realizing that this idea of islam being a peacful religion driven to extremes by western meddling is just simply not true. Has US intervention caused a lot of problems in the middle east? Most certainly. Are those who are willing to kill people over a cartoon uneducated, ignorant, and operating on stone-age superstition? Undeniably.

it was brilliant only in the ridley scott meaning of the word.

If people were getting killed for drawing Mickey Mouse, it would be plain as day that, of course, people should be able to draw Mickey Mouse at will and not consequently fear for their safety.

 

But for some reason this idea gets muddled when it pertains to offending the members of a bronze age cult. It seems to me a sort-of liberal PC-ness run amok (and I say this as a fellow far-lefty).

 

As far as I'm concerned, the first amendment isn't up for debate. And the only way to be immune to blackmail (as I think this essentially is) is to pre-commit to ignoring threats of blackmail so that there is no incentive to blackmail you in the first place.

 

Silly religious dogmas have had a grip on humanity's throat for long enough: some politician's faith tells them that marriage is between a man and a woman, or that life begins at conception, or that the earth is only 6,000 years old or that climate change isn't happening because only God can destroy humanity...and then we're left holding the check.

 

It seems like a kind of masochistic insanity, how we let these deluded half-wits dictate how we live. To the extant that we denounce cartoonists for not folding to the implicit blackmail of a thuggish cult, we have truly lost our way.

i hardly think the issue is muddled. it's one thing to unconditionally support free speech (i agree with you completely that it isn't up for debate) and quite another to characterize knuckleheads like pam geller as "brilliant."

 

beyond that your characterization of islam as a "thuggish" "bronze age cult" engaged in the blackmail of our rights is not particularly compelling.

1) I don't know who Pam Geller is. (Admittedly, I didn't read the details of the incident in Texas beyond the first paragraph or so...)

 

2) I'm not calling the entirety of Islam a 'thuggish cult' but rather whatever subset of Islam that wants to suppress cartoon-drawing and anything else deemed blasphemous.

 

(Generally speaking, I regard Muslims as just normal people who happen to be mistaken about the holy origins of the Qur'an.

 

I do think Islam is a 'bronze age cult' almost by definition, as with the other Abrahamic religions. But really that's not a terribly harsh indictment in itself: my mother belongs to the Spiritualist Church--which I consider a cult--and she and I get along quite well, however much we disagree about spirit guides and contacting the dead...)

[Adieu]

They cannot amend the bill if it is given fast track authority, that's my issue. It has to receive a simple yes/no vote as-is, and they have 90 days to get it done, which is not enough time to review 23+ chapters of a massive all-encompassing trade agreement. The agreement itself is blatantly unconstitutional, in part because of the expanded ISDS clauses I just mentioned, which I hope you've read about.

 

I'm not here to convince you guys though, this is just something that affects "how the world sees America." Stick to your guns and we'll see what happens, I guess.

 

Back to discussing the danger of cartoons.

 

And as for that food comment... we're not talking about food. Your genetics are more likely to kill you, your car is more likely to kill you, the neighbor's dog is probably more likely to kill you - and none of that has shit to do with our discussion, which never had the question "What's the most likely thing you can die from and should we ban it?"

 

Exactly, so why are people so scared of a specific tool? The people that robbed you could have very easily robbed you with a different legal tool. And the legality makes no difference. It's not even a functional approach going forward. Technology is going to give everyone the ability to produce massively destructive tools. we already have access to many massively destructive tools, but it's going to get much easier and much scarier. Banning the tools isn't the fix. Fixing the people is what is necessary. IMO focus is being put in the wrong places. The VAST majority of gun owners use their guns for fun, food, and defense. It's the same idea with drug prohibition.

[luke viia]

Yeah, I'm not an advocate of an outright ban on nearly anything. Just want better regulation and laws. I really just wanted to help answer the question "why are people afraid of guns?"

[awepittance]

 

I think the whole draw-the-prophet thing was brilliant and people need to start realizing that this idea of islam being a peacful religion driven to extremes by western meddling is just simply not true. Has US intervention caused a lot of problems in the middle east? Most certainly. Are those who are willing to kill people over a cartoon uneducated, ignorant, and operating on stone-age superstition? Undeniably.

 

it was brilliant only in the ridley scott meaning of the word.

 

autopilot what the hell man, are you serious? it was 'brilliant' ?

 

 

im going to walk into the ghetto with a shirt that says 'nigger' on it and get killed. That was fucking brilliant wasn't it?

 

before i do this i'm also hosting a cartoon contest about who can draw the biggest nose on a cartoon caricature of a jewish man, catch you on the flipside dewd and pls continue to bask in my belligerent brilliance

Edited May 9, 2015 by John Ehrlichman

[LimpyLoo]

 

 

 

 

I think the whole draw-the-prophet thing was brilliant and people need to start realizing that this idea of islam being a peacful religion driven to extremes by western meddling is just simply not true. Has US intervention caused a lot of problems in the middle east? Most certainly. Are those who are willing to kill people over a cartoon uneducated, ignorant, and operating on stone-age superstition? Undeniably.

it was brilliant only in the ridley scott meaning of the word.

autopilot what the hell man, are you serious? it was 'brilliant' ?

 

 

im going to walk into the ghetto with a shirt that says 'nigger' on it and get killed. That was fucking brilliant wasn't it?

 

before i do this i'm also hosting a cartoon contest about who can draw the biggest nose on a cartoon caricature of a jewish man, catch you on the flipside dewd and pls continue to bask in my belligerent brilliance

Are you really taking that side? And are you really equating simply drawing Muhammed with spewing racist hatred?

 

"Wrong side of history" and all that...

[Adieu]

Just going to leave this here for the people who have issues with Islam.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PzusSqcotDw

Yeah, I'm not an advocate of an outright ban on nearly anything. Just want better regulation and laws. I really just wanted to help answer the question "why are people afraid of guns?"

 

My issues was that people are more "scared" of guns than they are of statistically much more dangerous things. Like cars...

[LimpyLoo]

Just going to leave this here for the people who have issues with Islam.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PzusSqcotDw

Islam is not one monolithic thing, the way religion is not one monolithic thing. It's like talking about human nature or music...all that video demonstrates is that Bill Maher was wrong about a couple things.

 

Do you have any specific thoughts on drawing pictures of Muhammed?

[Adieu]

 

Just going to leave this here for the people who have issues with Islam.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PzusSqcotDw

Islam is not one monolithic thing, the way religion is not one monolithic thing. It's like talking about human nature or music...all that video demonstrates is that Bill Maher was wrong about a couple things.

 

Do you have any specific thoughts on drawing pictures of Muhammed?

 

 

 

Well, it demonstrates a lot of the ignorance coming from people who slam islam as THE problem when it's most often a lot of different factors that play into these problems. Religion is just a foundation upon which one can justify these types of behaviors. By the way, I'm not a fan of religion and would like to see it removed from this planet, or at the very least see a new one developed that works with the realities of science, and is applied logically while accepting the current mysteries we have to behold in this universe.

 

My thoughts on the drawing of muhammed. It's distasteful to purposefully aggravate people in such a way. Especially if one is considering the fact that we've been killing millions of their people over the last decade, and then people in our country are now spitting in their face so to speak. There was an obvious christianity vs islam theme to that gathering of people if you watch their stream. The idea of a holy war, which in my opinion we've been waging for over a decade now scares me very much especially considering most won't admit to it. Christianity is very much a religion founded on blood and propagated by the use of force, and I would argue it would be much less present in our lives now if they hadn't been murdering all their opposition back in the day. I think that most religious people are ignorant to reality which includes the true history of their dearly held religion. It's always political and capitalistic in nature. It's really frustrating.

 

People who purposelessly aggravate others for any reason are just assholes. In this case the levels of assholism lead to the death of individuals. It's sad. I'm praying for an evolution of humanity in this country as the drug war ends.

[LimpyLoo]

 

 

 

 

People who purposelessly aggravate others for any reason are just assholes. In this case the levels of assholism lead to the death of individuals. It's sad. I'm praying for an evolution of humanity in this country as the drug war ends.

 

1) I can tell by the passive wording of "lead to the death" that you're trying to soften this point: They were murdered.

 

2) I really don't think that you and JE understand the implications of what you're saying.

 

If I'm in a religion that thinks that music is an affront to God and all who hear it are damned to hell...if you KNOW that I feel that way, then should you not make music so as not to aggregate me? And if you do make music, and then I kill you, is it partly your fault for provoking me? (Before you answer, please think carefully about the sort of world you want to live in...)

Edited May 10, 2015 by LimpyLoo

[Adieu]

 

 

I don't know about all y'all, but if I were a muslim living in Texas (or anywhere in the south really) I'd get the hell out before I was subjected to anymore of that famous "southern hospitality".

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/05/us/garland-texas-shooting-muhammad-cartoons.html

 

 

Nope, I'm talking bout what's sure to follow.

 

I'm pretty sure the only thing sure to follow is more idiocy on your part.

 

Top 10 airports for firearms seizures, gee the South likes guns? Who knew. Look at Texas numbers, funny if it wasn't so scary. I'm sick of US articles that call this a "post 9/11 world", it's a post 9/11 country. The rest of the world moved on.

 

https://instagram.com/p/yXzjeml9xB/?taken-by=tsa

 

Why is it scary that people have guns?

 

 

Hey that's a great rebuttal. I tell you what, I'll bet you one album purchase max 20 bucks that an innocent muslim gets shot in the US in 2015.

Those idiots who opened fire at the draw-a-prophet thing (a stupid idea - almost certainly guaranteed to cause an incident) were not innocent, so don't think I'm condoning them.

 

As to your last question, it's not scary that people have guns per se. There are a lot of guns up here in Canada. What's scary is that people feel the need to walk around shopping malls with machine guns, or that concealed carry is totally legal in all states along with stand your ground laws in many states (23 states have stand your ground laws) that would make it difficult to press murder charges unless there was an eyewitness or video evidence. Some jackoff in Florida or Arizona loses his shit cause he thinks you cut him off, then whips out his gun in the heat of the moment? So I guess what I'm trying to say is that your gun "laws" are ridiculous.

 

Whoever wrote about the religion of peace thing - please, take a look at how many muslims there are in the world, and then look at how many are actively killing christians. Do you honestly, honestly think the actions of a few represent the whole? There's a far higher chance of being killed by a Christian if you're living in the US.

 

Edit: and yes that's fucked up JE. I hope your sister stays safe, along with you and the rest of your family of course.

 

 

I think that you're unfairly characterizing Texas, or the south, in your earlier statements. Texas is very colorful. Lots of mexicans, muslims, asians, etc. The conservatives here are racist, but there are tons of intelligent and tolerant folks here.

 

I find the fact that we have so many guns here, and people aren't going on shooting rampages and murdering others with guns all the time quite reassuring as to the peaceful and moral nature of most humans. It's a work in progress though.

[Adieu]

 

 

 

 

 

 

People who purposelessly aggravate others for any reason are just assholes. In this case the levels of assholism lead to the death of individuals. It's sad. I'm praying for an evolution of humanity in this country as the drug war ends.

 

1) I can tell by the passive wording of "lead to the death" that you're trying to soften this point: They were murdered.

 

2) I really don't think that you and JE understand the implications of what you're saying.

 

If I'm in a religion that thinks that music is an affront to God and all who hear it are damned to hell...if you KNOW that I feel that way, then should you not make music so as not to aggregate me? And if you do make music, and then I kill you, is it partly your fault for provoking me? (Before you answer, please think carefully about the sort of world you want to live in...)

 

I'm not trying to soften anything so don't attempt to assert my motivations upon me. It's distracting.

 

I made a factual statement about what happened.

 

I don't even know what you're trying to say really. Needlessly provoking people is and always will be a douchey thing to do. In this case it's to the point that behaving in such a way is insensitive to the plight of muslim people at the hands of OUR government and their dictators. It's gross. I'm proud that my state was prepared enough to keep anyone but the aggressors from dying. It still sucks people died though. It's still shitty.

 

You also failed to acknowledge like a million things I touched on that are relevant to the situation in question, but I'm sure they're too inconvenient to discuss as they are quite complex. Seems most the discussion surrounding the current issue with the USA, islam, and the middle east are too complicated to be discussed properly by most people.

 

You've brought the discussion to such a reductive point as to render it completely useless to even spend time discussing it.

[brian trageskin]

before i do this i'm also hosting a cartoon contest about who can draw the biggest nose on a cartoon caricature of a jewish man, catch you on the flipside dewd and pls continue to bask in my belligerent brilliance

 

 

 

 

 

 

[LimpyLoo]

 

 

 

 

 

People who purposelessly aggravate others for any reason are just assholes. In this case the levels of assholism lead to the death of individuals. It's sad. I'm praying for an evolution of humanity in this country as the drug war ends.

1) I can tell by the passive wording of "lead to the death" that you're trying to soften this point: They were murdered.

 

2) I really don't think that you and JE understand the implications of what you're saying.

 

If I'm in a religion that thinks that music is an affront to God and all who hear it are damned to hell...if you KNOW that I feel that way, then should you not make music so as not to aggregate me? And if you do make music, and then I kill you, is it partly your fault for provoking me? (Before you answer, please think carefully about the sort of world you want to live in...)

 

I'm not trying to soften anything so don't attempt to assert my motivations upon me. It's distracting.

 

I made a factual statement about what happened.

 

I don't even know what you're trying to say really. Needlessly provoking people is and always will be a douchey thing to do. In this case it's to the point that behaving in such a way is insensitive to the plight of muslim people at the hands of OUR government and their dictators. It's gross. I'm proud that my state was prepared enough to keep anyone but the aggressors from dying. It still sucks people died though. It's still shitty.

 

You also failed to acknowledge like a million things I touched on that are relevant to the situation in question, but I'm sure they're too inconvenient to discuss as they are quite complex. Seems most the discussion surrounding the current issue with the USA, islam, and the middle east are too complicated to be discussed properly by most people.

 

You've brought the discussion to such a reductive point as to render it completely useless to even spend time discussing it.

 

So in my example, would you make music or not?

I'm curious what JE would say, too.

 

It seems to me that in order to be logically and morally consistent, you should both advice the musician to stop making music so as not to aggravate the religious puritan, no?

[luke viia]

I'll answer the music question!

 

No, I would not stop making music. If you're just speaking of an imaginary example, then my making music would not harm you in any way except if you were forced to listen to it. So I'd make it, knowing you believed I was damned to hell. I would not strap you down and put earbuds in you, that would be wrong by both our moral standards.

 

In the case of Islam's actual approach to music, and if we were in the same situation, I'd still make the tunes. Why? Well, because the believer is the one who should not, or cannot listen, not me. I expect most Muslims would understand this and do their best to piously avoid offensive music, and if I were Muslim, they would ask the same of me. But I do not share their beliefs, so - and again I speak of moderate Muslims here, because they are the majority - I would not be under the obligation to abide by those rules. That may sadden or anger a Muslim and that's fine. I have a song called "Don't Worry Dark Lord" and that's offended plenty of Christians, but I don't have to play by their rules. I believe this is morally consistent with the reverse: If I am opposed to hearing the glorification of rape, I would expect those who know me and know my beliefs to avoid coming to me to express love for sexually assaulting others. It would upset me and I would not want to hear it, for my own personal reasons. I may think the person is doomed to a life of terrible values and will suffer. I may try to change them. These are all moderate actions. If I were a crazy man, and there are plenty of us in a group of over 1.5 billion, I might attempt to physically harm the person who has offended me. In all cases, If I kill you, it's my fault, not yours. My beliefs caused the death of a man, and by the laws of reality I would be responsible. Perhaps not by my beliefs, but at least by law (unless I live in a country where that's permitted when in defense of a personal belief, in which case, cultural relativism snaps in and we have a whole new argument: are the laws of morality universal, or can groups of people make their own collective decisions about such matters so that they are justifiable in that group??)

 

I hope it's clear that my reasoning in no way excuses the deadliness in response to drawing cartoons.

 

whew I like answering stuff. that must be really annoying.

Edited May 10, 2015 by luke viia

[luke viia]

All that said, if I made music directly to offend you, for the purpose of aggravating you, that would not be defensible. Of course, plenty of musicians do this, and it's fun to listen to for those of us not offended. Does that make it less inflammatory? hardly. It just doesn't push our buttons. And if someone kills someone else because of direct provocation in any form, the murderer is still responsible. It's just slightly more understandable than unprovoked murder, so like-minded people are less likely to judge the murderer harshly. Religion amplified that ability to relate, because the members are bonded by belief, not just background or personal taste or whatever.

 

I'm done talking now I swear.

[LimpyLoo]

Thank you for thinking clearly about this issue, Luke.

 

People should be able to draw anything they want without the threat of death...even if they're deliberately trying to offend. If we start protecting people from simply being offended, then just imagine living a society engineered by Tipper Gore, Rick Santorum, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini...

[chenGOD]

Luke: brief reply now- curious why you think ISDS provisions are anti-constitutional? ISDS provisions have been around for a long time (and I do have my concerns about overreach by corps and lack of proper oversight for tribunals) and they haven't caused the end of the world yet. Are they perfect? No. And I think some things in the ISDS provisions should be changed.

The real worry for me in the TPP is the IP related stuff.

[MisterE]

limpy i just want to say that this is another case where i completely agree with you, so far

[Adieu]

Thank you for thinking clearly about this issue, Luke.

 

People should be able to draw anything they want without the threat of death...even if they're deliberately trying to offend. If we start protecting people from simply being offended, then just imagine living a society engineered by Tipper Gore, Rick Santorum, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini...

 

Limpy representing those Fox News talking points all up in this thread.

[MisterE]

adieu i'd think you'd be a bit more sensitive to the idea of someone deviating from the typical hivemind of this place, and wouldn't so lamely try to compare them to fox news for doing so, when you yourself have ideas that don't quite match up with what seems to be a majority here. your gun ideas being one, which i'm sure most fox viewers can relate with.

Edited May 10, 2015 by MisterE

[Adieu]

adieu i'd think you'd be a bit more sensitive to the idea of someone deviating from the typical hivemind of this place, and wouldn't so lamely try to compare them to fox news for doing so, when you yourself have ideas that don't quite match up with what seems to be a majority here. your gun ideas being one, which i'm sure most fox viewers can relate with.

 

It is very Fox News, which by the way I have no problem with on the basis of political alignment, in that it lacks nuance and purpose and it is very much an appeal to fear. It is merely an assertion of a principle. A simple principle that with which most people can agree. But assertion of that principle over the context and reality of the situation at hand shows a very important lack of either A) caring or B) understanding. Moreover, to emphasize the principle of freedom to offend, over sensitivity and understanding is evidence enough of priority. It's at the bare minimum EXTREMELY distasteful. Limpy also took my comments as some kind of support for state sanctioned protection from being offended which I don't quite understand. As if you should only do and not do those things that government determines. Let's not even get into the fact that the actual laws in this country don't reflect the very principle for which he is attempting to stand up and support. His point is not a deviation. It's purposeless in its simplicity. It fails to recognize reality and practicality, and it supports the offenders in question without fully recognizing their intent. We can all agree that intent is meaningful, correct? Anyway, like I said, the complexity of the situation lends itself to facile arguments such as this. (thanks reza)

[MisterE]

there are a lot of people who's careers are based on being shocking, edgy, controversial, and offensive, including comedians, musicians, artists, etc. the 'satanists' who don't actually believe in satan and are quick to give pseudo-intellectual reasoning for why they call themselves that, we all know the main reason is to offend certain types, to be shocking, etc. prob a lot of the people condemning this draw muhammad thing, think highly of others who make a living from or a point to offend other particular groups.

 

you say it's wrong to emphasize freedom to offend over the lack of sensitivity etc, but it seems to me you are emphasizing that stuff over the fact that the people getting offended by cartoon drawings think that it justifies murder. and that, by far, is the bigger problem.

[Adieu]

there are a lot of people who's careers are based on being shocking, edgy, controversial, and offensive, including comedians, musicians, artists, etc. the 'satanists' who don't actually believe in satan and are quick to give pseudo-intellectual reasoning for why they call themselves that, we all know the main reason is to offend certain types, to be shocking, etc. prob a lot of the people condemning this draw muhammad thing, think highly of others who make a living from or a point to offend other particular groups.

 

you say it's wrong to emphasize freedom to offend over the lack of sensitivity etc, but it seems to me you are emphasizing that stuff over the fact that the people getting offended by cartoon drawings think that it justifies murder. and that, by far, is the bigger problem.

 

Right, now figure out what caused them to get from disagreeing with the person doing it, and attempting to kill them. Then we have a substantive discussion.

Edited May 10, 2015 by AdieuErsatzEnnui