Pouring Gasoline on the Muslim Fire

[BeenThere...DoneThat...]

...you all know full well that there are people with principles that are just not our own... are we really going to vilify them for it?

[fairlycrazy23]

I think we should keep pouring gasoline until they burn themselves up, if all it takes is some crappy youtube video or silly little cartoons.

[Deleted]

Sept 22, 2012 21:12:47 GMT -5 BeenThere...DoneThat... said:

...you all know full well that there are people with principles that are just not our own... are we really going to vilify them for it?

Am I the only one to want to

[BeenThere...DoneThat...]

...well at least you got the joke...

[deziloooooo]

It is a few children playing "macho man"...even "Macho woman"...have never left the shores of the USA..not counting a vacation in the Caribbean, Mexico, possible Canada and similar excursions..have never served..and never will, we don't do that any more..only 1% of population if that ever do..so have never experienced what real tragedy of physical harm is really all about..

For me, the one who asked for the thread to go away and if resurrected, any of those doing so go away too..would be a great idea.

[Spellbound454]

Frankly, those women, who are treated worse than dogs, would be better off dead than living in a country that think so poorly of them. Plus, I'm sorry, but they are raising future killers. I have no issue with cutting off the system that keeps having future killers. You hurt one of our people, boom, a city is gone, just like that, in smoke and ashes. Do it again, same thing but to another city. You don't have to nuke them, just bomb them into another level of thinking. They may grumble but they will stop killing or be dead and then the killing stops anyway

Some one over there is probably thinking, send a drone and we riot. Send a missle and we put out in ied. You don't have to kill them all, just enough to get them to leave.

What the hell are you talking about?
Advocating mass murder of innocents instead of looking at ways of sorting the problem out.?

This is the woolly ignorant thinking of a freakin caveman.

For Shame.....

[Spellbound454]

Anyway I think this.

In a free country everyone has the right to protest....lots of people protest, they don't necessarily represent me or the majority of the population.
...but they must have that right for freedom of expression.

However, the minute they pick up a rock....it is not a protest... it is a riot.
Rioting is against the law and those doing it are criminals.

If you look at the voices in the Muslim world... most of the feeling is the same....They wish to object but will not support violence.
There are always those who wish to bully their opinions on to others...but their opinion is no more important than anyone elses.

We saw the people-power protest in Benghazi yesterday...it wasn't widely reported. Why not?
They were saying they did not support violence but we have chosen to ignore that.
Perhaps only showing jihadists is a political agenda......but they are not representative of the majority and we must understand that.

As for free speech...It is a requirement of a free society.
Many of those that have previously lived under a dictatorship simply don't understand how it works. They think that whatever views are expressed are the views of the majority and/or the government. They need to understand how "free speech" works as well....or this is going to continue to happen.
They can protest...they can make their own films...or they can put out intelligent counter-view.
...but they cannot demand the loss of free speech from other countries across an ocean which is ingrained in their constitution.

However, it is in some party's interests to whip up fury for political gain......The people are being hoodwinked and they need enlightening.
We are seeing the argument from here portrayed in those countries in a very one-sided way.
...and we are seeing the protests portrayed over here in a very one-sided way.


...but I do think that hate speech should not hide behind the free speech banner.......and we should be watching out for those who are attempting to manipulate.

[deziloooooo]

Sept 23, 2012 3:37:10 GMT -5 Spellbound454 said:

Anyway I think this.

In a free country everyone has the right to protest....lots of people protest, they don't necessarily represent me or the majority of the population.
...but they must have that right for freedom of expression.

However, the minute they pick up a rock....it is not a protest... it is a riot.
Rioting is against the law and those doing it are criminals.

If you look at the voices in the Muslim world... most of the feeling is the same....They wish to object but will not support violence.
There are always those who wish to bully their opinions on to others...but their opinion is no more important than anyone elses.

We saw the people-power protest in Benghazi yesterday...it wasn't widely reported. Why not?
They were saying they did not support violence but we have chosen to ignore that.
Perhaps only showing jihadists is a political agenda......but they are not representative of the majority and we must understand that.

As for free speech...It is a requirement of a free society.
Many of those that have previously lived under a dictatorship simply don't understand how it works. They think that whatever views are expressed are the views of the majority and/or the government. They need to understand how "free speech" works as well....or this is going to continue to happen.
They can protest...they can make their own films...or they can put out intelligent counter-view.
...but they cannot demand the loss of free speech from other countries across an ocean which is ingrained in their constitution.

However, it is in some party's interests to whip up fury for political gain......The people are being hoodwinked and they need enlightening.
We are seeing the argument from here portrayed in those countries in a very one-sided way.
...and we are seeing the protests portrayed over here in a very one-sided way.


...but I do think that hate speech should not hide behind the free speech banner.......and we should be watching out for those who are attempting to manipulate.

"We saw the people-power protest in Benghazi yesterday...it wasn't widely reported. Why not?"

Opps...sorry there Spell....it was well reported in my Daily newspaper..Sun Sentinal..Ft Lauderdale..also a online newspapaer from my old home town that I visit most days..didn't watch the network news yesterday so can't speak for them but wouldn't be surprised if covered..
Possible the problem is in the UK as to much time and effort is being devoted to the Royals ??

[fairlycrazy23]

Sept 23, 2012 3:37:10 GMT -5 Spellbound454 said:

...but I do think that hate speech should not hide behind the free speech banner.......and we should be watching out for those who are attempting to manipulate.

What is hate speech, that is the problem, you are making a distinction between what is ok and what is not ok based on some group of peoples opinions at some particular time.

[BeenThere...DoneThat...]

Sept 23, 2012 7:21:11 GMT -5 fairlycrazy23 said:

Sept 23, 2012 3:37:10 GMT -5 Spellbound454 said:

...but I do think that hate speech should not hide behind the free speech banner.......and we should be watching out for those who are attempting to manipulate.

What is hate speech, that is the problem, you are making a distinction between what is ok and what is not ok based on some group of peoples opinions at some particular time.

...good point...

...and I'll fall on a sword here and admit that it seems to me this thread is all over the map now... it started with pouring gas on the muslim fire, per the article... then it became pouring gas on fellow posters' ire... several posts got deleted per the CoC... and now I can't tell if posters are complaining about posters or are we still discussing the OP...

[mmhmm]

Sept 22, 2012 20:39:54 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

mmhmm- could you purge this fucking thread? it is so full of vileness and hatred it is really not useful for anything other than perpetuating violence.

tyia,

djpolldancer

While I certainly understand what you're saying, dj, I think the thread does give us a bird's eye view into the way some people think. From that standpoint, it's a good sorting mechanism for our posters. So far, the ToS/CoC hasn't been broken (by any posts still here) but there's a clear light shining on a few elements that may not have made themselves clear prior to this time.

I've removed some posts that actually promoted violence against a group of people who don't meet the expectations of one of our posters, and I'll remove such posts from any poster who posts such garbage. We're all here and we all share our views to the degree allowed by the CoC and ToS. If a poster's views are such that others must die for not sharing them, that's that posters cross to bear. That sort doesn't shock me, and they don't impress me. That sort disgusts me, just as they disgust many other sentient beings. Let 'em rant and credit them, and them alone, with their own sentiments. Treat them, here on these boards, as you feel they deserve.

mmhmm, Administrator

[mmhmm]

Sept 23, 2012 8:09:12 GMT -5 BeenThere...DoneThat... said:

Sept 23, 2012 7:21:11 GMT -5 fairlycrazy23 said:

What is hate speech, that is the problem, you are making a distinction between what is ok and what is not ok based on some group of peoples opinions at some particular time.

...good point...

...and I'll fall on a sword here and admit that it seems to me this thread is all over the map now... it started with pouring gas on the muslim fire, per the article... then it became pouring gas on fellow posters' ire... several posts got deleted per the CoC... and now I can't tell if posters are complaining about posters or are we still discussing the OP...

I think there's a bit of both, Been There, as usual.

[cereb]

Hate speech is, outside the law, communication that vilifies a person or a group on the basis of color, disability, ethnicity, gender, nationality, race, religion, sexual orientation, or other characteristic.[1][2]

In law, hate speech is any speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it may incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group. The law may identify a protected individual or a protected group by disability, ethnicity, gender, gender identity, nationality, religion, race, sexual orientation, [3][4] or other characteristic.[5][6] In some countries, a victim of hate speech may seek redress under civil law, criminal law, or both. A website that uses hate speech is called a hate site. Most of these sites contain Internet forums and news briefs that emphasize a particular viewpoint. There has been debate over how freedom of speech applies to the Internet.

Critics have argued that the term "hate speech" is a modern example of Newspeak, used to silence critics of social policies that have been poorly implemented in a rush to appear politically correct.[7][8][9]


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech

[fairlycrazy23]

I guess , I should have said I know what the definition of hate speech is, but it is far too nebulous and open to interpretation; and in the US at least is a clear violation of the 1st amendment, and probably the 14th.

[mmhmm]

Sept 22, 2012 16:14:59 GMT -5 TonyTiger said:

Sept 22, 2012 10:20:48 GMT -5 ameiko said:

Message deleted by mmhmm. Removed for fostering hate against a group of people, per ProBoards' ToS.

Pity we can't delete those Muslims who foster hate against groups of people, per ProBoards' TOS... ;D

They aren't doing it here on our forums. It was you who brought that ugliness here, tony, through the posting of that picture. Had that been a living person being beaten, the picture would have been removed.

mmhmm, P&M Moderator

[Spellbound454]

Possible the problem is in the UK as to much time and effort is being devoted to the Royals ??

No... but we do have the speaker of the house calling a policeman a "pleb"..or not.
Its been rumbling on for days, for heavens sake....Who cares? .... Lets see some real news.

[mmhmm]

Sept 22, 2012 21:01:56 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Sept 22, 2012 21:00:20 GMT -5 cereb said:

"I disagree. It is an excellent opportunity to see people's souls."


I think it's apparent there are those without one.

yes. and it is completely unclear to me how the world is made better giving them an open forum for recruitment.

I don't think you can recruit a decent person to indecency, dj. You, I, and the majority of our posters will react with disgust toward those who advocate hatred and violence. It is in our natures to do so. Such an individual cannot turn your thinking because you will automatically reject, out of hand, their repellent way of thinking. You have a conscience and it's working correctly.

[Spellbound454]

through the posting of that picture

There is a difference here...We are used to satire, free speech and everything else.......so look on at burning flags, bibles, effigies, shoe throwing.. with bemusement.
If it was meant to be offensive......they are failing...... and it just makes the people doing it look stupid.
We have reached a point that others haven't, as yet, reached.

[billisonboard]

Sept 23, 2012 8:44:41 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Sept 22, 2012 21:01:56 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

yes. and it is completely unclear to me how the world is made better giving them an open forum for recruitment.

I don't think you can recruit a decent person to indecency, dj. You, I, and the majority of our posters will react with disgust toward those who advocate hatred and violence. It is in our natures to do so. Such an individual cannot turn your thinking because you will automatically reject, out of hand, their repellent way of thinking. You have a conscience and it's working correctly.

I think that there are potentially people "on the fence". I think that an open forum presentation of ideas that allow for discussion is preferable to whispered conversations.

[mmhmm]

I agree, billis. However, I take it a step further. If a person is "on the fence" with regard to such things, they're going to fall on the side they choose. They'll do that in spite of what they might read here. The fact that anyone could find themselves "on the fence" in such a case speaks reams, IMO.

[mmhmm]

Sept 23, 2012 8:50:02 GMT -5 Spellbound454 said:

through the posting of that picture

There is a difference here...We are used to satire, free speech and everything else.......so look on at burning flags, bibles, effigies, shoe throwing.. with bemusement.
If it was meant to be offensive......they are failing...... and it just makes the people doing it look stupid.
We have reached a point that others haven't, as yet, reached.

Yes. We who have lived in an atmosphere of very lightly controlled (you can't yell FIRE! in a crowded theater) free speech have reached that point. We must, however, be vigilant enough to pick up on the nuance of intent when such content is used as a red flag, IMO.

[billisonboard]

Sept 23, 2012 8:57:16 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

... If a person is "on the fence" with regard to such things, they're going to fall on the side they choose. They'll do that in spite of what they might read here. The fact that anyone could find themselves "on the fence" in such a case speaks reams, IMO.

I am going to disagree.

The concept known as the law of the instrument, Maslow's hammer, Gavel or a golden hammer is an over-reliance on a familiar tool; as Abraham Maslow said in 1966, "I suppose it is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail."[1]
... The first recorded statement of the concept was Abraham Kaplan's, in 1964: "I call it the law of the instrument, and it may be formulated as follows: Give a small boy a hammer, and he will find that everything he encounters needs pounding."[2] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_the_instrument

I believe that sometimes it is a matter of giving someone an additional tool.

[mmhmm]

Hopefully, we don't have that many "small boys" here, billis. By the time you've become an adult and discretion is something other than a three-sylllable word to you, that which is not a nail will be relatively safe from your hammer and you'll have your own toolbox in which to find the tool you really need.

[cereb]

Sept 23, 2012 9:15:42 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Sept 23, 2012 8:57:16 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

... If a person is "on the fence" with regard to such things, they're going to fall on the side they choose. They'll do that in spite of what they might read here. The fact that anyone could find themselves "on the fence" in such a case speaks reams, IMO.

I am going to disagree.

The concept known as the law of the instrument, Maslow's hammer, Gavel or a golden hammer is an over-reliance on a familiar tool; as Abraham Maslow said in 1966, "I suppose it is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail."[1]
... The first recorded statement of the concept was Abraham Kaplan's, in 1964: "I call it the law of the instrument, and it may be formulated as follows: Give a small boy a hammer, and he will find that everything he encounters needs pounding."[2] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_the_instrument

I believe that sometimes it is a matter of giving someone an additional tool.

Exceptionally brilliant Bills.

[fairlycrazy23]

Sept 23, 2012 8:59:57 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Yes. We who have lived in an atmosphere of very lightly controlled (you can't yell FIRE! in a crowded theater) free speech have reached that point. We must, however, be vigilant enough to pick up on the nuance of intent when such content is used as a red flag, IMO.

I'm not sure what you mean, are you equating people saying or doing something that someone finds offense to yelling fire in a crowded theater? Because they are not even slightly the same.

[billisonboard]

Sept 23, 2012 9:20:31 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Hopefully, we don't have that many "small boys" here, billis. ...

Hope is a good thing. Evidence on the other hand, ...

[cereb]

Sept 23, 2012 9:20:31 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Hopefully, we don't have that many "small boys" here, billis. By the time you've become an adult and discretion is something other than a three-sylllable word to you, that which is not a nail will be relatively safe from your hammer and you'll have your own toolbox in which to find the tool you really need.

Unfortunately, there are enough who have never developed that "discretion" and continue to carry the hammer because toting the toolbox is too much work.

[TonyTiger]

Sept 23, 2012 8:40:18 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

"..."

The truth is oftentimes an ugly thing.

This is a forum for the discussing of Politics - both domestic and international - and the related news which drives our decisions.

Making decisions on foreign policy and our intereactions with the rest of the world - and supporting or opposing those decisions - requires open, honest, frank and objective discussion, so that readers are free to interact with their colleagues, and so that they feel free to reach their own common-sense conclusions without fear of censure by a group of their peers who already lean strongly in one direction or the other - hawk or dove or anything in-between.

Personally, I am unashamedly and boldy anti-Muslim.

I have given my reasons in these threads time and again; citing, as I do, the nature of the so-called Divine Message, the bloodstained hands of its Founder, its text-embedded permissions and encouragements to war and violence upon one's fellow Man in their name of their vision of God under various circumstances, the ease by which any street-corner mullah may incite his flock to commit violence, its systemic repression of women, gays, and non-believers and apostates, its savage punishments, its intolerance for both criticism and competition, and on and on and on.

But my own brand of disgust and distaste resonates more to a hard and unyielding stance such as we see in that of the British comedian and commentor in the video on Page 1 of this thread, rather than undertaking a modern-day Crusade or series of nuke-sorties, as we've seen referenced in this very thread over the past day or two that it's been on its feet.

Whenever one advocates a firm resistance to foreign attempts to censor our press and our freedoms, one is almost certain to draw a variety of reactions...

1. agreement, on the part of a sizable percentage of readers; although there will be wide disagreement over how to achieve that firm resistance.

2. passivity, on the part of naive, head-in-the-sand types

3. hawkishness, on the part of the more direct, brunt types

All three types of reaction have their place in a public forum and all three types should be free to express themselves without fear of ridicule or censure to the point of silencing their voices.

Responses along the lines of (2) and (3) can be dead-serious and entirely valid and rationally articulated and supported, or they can be mini-sound-bytes that border on jingoism, or they can be comic (intentionally or otherwise), or they can get downright vicious, or even contemptible - as folks use the medium to vent their feelings and frustrations and even - sometimes - go too far and begin to border on the contemptible rather than the rational.

Apparently, there's been a bit of that here (delete-able posts of the [3] [hawkish] type) in the past day or so, but that's understandable as well, given that some of our colleagues feel very strongly about a very large group of people whose attitudes and hair-trigger susceptibility to hatred and violence seem to threaten our very way of life, when viewed as a long-term (even multi-generational) ebb and flow of confrontation interspersed with periods of rest and recuperation and retooling and re-strengthening.

Those harsher expressions do not in most instances reflect Bad People; rather, they oftentimes reflect such factors as youth, inexperience, not yet having thought a problem through in search of additional solution-options, a bad case of follow-the-leader syndrome, or impatience and anger as a reaction to the perceived threat, or certainty that fanatics linked to a violence-prone belief system cannot be dealt with in any manner other than by overwhelming and decisive violence in return.

Any thinking person knows that when the blood begins to boil, hatred is just over the next metaphorical hilltop, and it's a very difficult task, to keep genuine hatred at bay, when taking that third approach - the more aggressive one. I'm not all that surprised that we get a number of "hits" like that which require deletion, because they violate the provider's ToS or our own CoC.

That's why we have you here, to clean that sort of thing up, when things DO get out of hand.

It may be a pain in the ass from time to time, but it beats a near-dead chat room that deals exclusively in coupon-clipping and cute kitten threads.

In my opinion...

[mmhmm]

Sept 23, 2012 9:25:18 GMT -5 cereb said:

Sept 23, 2012 9:20:31 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Hopefully, we don't have that many "small boys" here, billis. By the time you've become an adult and discretion is something other than a three-sylllable word to you, that which is not a nail will be relatively safe from your hammer and you'll have your own toolbox in which to find the tool you really need.

Unfortunately, there are enough who have never developed that "discretion" and continue to carry the hammer because toting the toolbox is too much work.

Too true, unfortunately. Also unfortunate is the fact these folks aren't going to change any time soon.

[TonyTiger]

Sept 23, 2012 9:53:49 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

"...Too true, unfortunately. Also unfortunate is the fact these folks aren't going to change any time soon."

Carrying an entire toolbox rather than just a hammer makes perfect sense, so long as you're capable of recognizing which tool is required for the job, and so long as you're willing to use and capable of using the hammer when the job calls for it... ;D