Having re-watched your video, and the wording of DF threat I have to point out that you mischaracterized the threat. He didn't threaten to kill people who comes to harm him or other innocent people. He threatens to kill people who simply TRY to convince people to to come to harm him, or other innocent people. Even IF TF were suggesting the nuclear option to deal with Muslim extremists, though I think he clearly wasn't, he has the right to express that opinion.
Additionally if DF hadn't cited the Qu'ran when he issued his threat to kill TF for simply trying to awaken the "sleeping giant". I would say his religion was irrelevant. But the use of religious texts to justify things like killing people simply for expressing their right to free speech is one of the issues many of us have with religion.
But that's how you view it. That's not how TF and DF claimed they viewed it. That's why I was reluctant to make this video. There are many unknowns and subjective value judgements that intersect.
I think our disagreement boils down to which criteria for relative moral judgement we place more value on.
Why do you say that isn't how TF views it? And if he doesn't I would say he's wrong. How else could you interpret what DF's said. His words are pretty clear "If you TRY to awaken a sleeping giant"?
In fact having just re-watched "Death Threats from 'moderate Muslims", TF's reply to the threat. It seems that is how TF saw it. He doesn't characterize DF's threat as being in response to some attack on Muslims, but an attack on his (TF's) right to free speech. Which is consistent with the wording of DF threat.
Sorry for adding more comments, but TF specifically does indeed claim that was how he saw it. In the followup video entitled 'The Sleeping Giant'. Where he says "Dawahfilms states that if I, this is me personally, or anyone like me merely attempts to arose the aforementioned sleeping giant, that means for merely trying. He, him personally, and his fellow Muslims must kill me".
@DawahFilms-how come in his video "Doc hunting DawahFilms" he states he didn't take my "threat" seriously as a threat at all?
Because he knows, or assumes you don't have the wherewithal, or the guts to follow through with it. That doesn't mean he doesn't think you seriously wish him dead, or that you wouldn't kill him if you could get away with it.
In Defamation law its called "neglect" when miscontextualize a persons statement AFTER theyve given clarifications. I released 2 videos prior to his accusation against me. He has Defamed me, wether you like it or not.
Claiming you didn't mean something as a threat doesn't make it so, nor does it obligate the person to accept it as true. And no, it might be neglect if you were able to provide proof that you didn't mean it as you said it, and that proof was ignored. And proving such a thing is impossible.
I mean the only "clarification" you can give is claiming that you didn't mean what you said. I wouldn't call that a clarification. If you had worded the threat in a way that open to misinterpretation, and then clarified it you might have a point, but what you said, at least to me, is pretty unambiguous.
@DawahFilms-You seem to think that mind reading equates to evidence.
That's ironic because it is in fact you that expects people to read minds. You say you will kill people for simply trying to awaken the sleeping giant, and then claim that isn't what you meant. That would only be evidence if we could read your mind, and determine whether it actually isn't what you meant, as opposed to claiming it isn't what you meant because it got widespread negative attention that you didn't expect.
Your claim that you didn't mean what you said is only evidence that you claim not to have meant what you said. It's not evidence that you didn't mean what you said.
Except the grammar of my words (yes, Im much better at english than you) insist otherwise. An active verb of "IS HOSTILE" in response to military rhetoric insist that the TRYING was achieved.
The fact you keep trying to spin it to make me seem like I want to kill him for just voicing his view on the matter is what is truly insane.
And you can try and focus on that all you want. The FACT is that my statement is no different than saying "If you try to kill my family and they end of dead". Same grammar. Same meaning.
You're pathetic, as usual. You can't win this argument. You have absolutely nothing. If this was brought into court the judge would laugh at your stupidity.
No, at it's best your statement is no different than saying. "If you try to incite someone to kill my family, I will kill you" Also you're alone in your claim that the statement on it's face means anything like what you claim. The few people who defend you do so because they believe you didn't actually mean it as you said it. And hurling invectives only displays your feelings of impotence at your inability to convince others using rational arguments.
And that's not because they are ignoring rational arguments, but because it's impossible to make what you said mean something else using them. You're expecting people to take your word for it on faith. While faith might be something you value as a virtue, most atheists don't.
I don't know how anyone can have so much certainty about these metaphors.
Here is one thing we do know. DF statement was conditional. That's a very strange way to threaten someone, It's also negated if the condition isn't met. If TF was not threatening, the condition will never be met thereby negating what DF said.
It sounds like you are grasping at straws so you don't have to accept that TF stirs up drama and demonizes people in a very deceptive way.
It's a conditional threat for sure, and DF is clearly with the "if you ever" part saying the conditions have yet to be met. Explain how "If you try to awaken" can mean anything other than "if you try to awaken". I've yet to hear any argument that makes it mean anything else except for DF's claim, but that only changes what he meant, not what he said.
It means whatever TF meant by "awaken the sleeping giant", or at least what people THOUGHT he meant, which could be mistaken. I thought it was just jingoist bluster, and therefore meant nothing at all, but that's just my personal opinion. I thought it was all bluster and bullshit from two people who were never going to do anything in the first place.
@sonnygll-It means whatever TF meant by "awaken the sleeping giant", or at least what people THOUGHT he meant, which could be mistaken.
That implies that however someone interprets a statement or act (no matter how unreasonable that interpretation might be) they are justified in responding based on that interpretation.
I think "justified" is a mischaracterization. What they thought, is what they thought, even if most of us might think it was stupid. So it's not that they are justified, so much as we can understand they took it the wrong way.
This of course applies much less to a literal statement. However this metaphor could really bring up any sort of WW2 related ideas, and associations thereof. So it takes on the meaning of whatever is in the listeners mind.
But in the video you are justifying it. Your are saying that since DF believes what TF said equates to a threat to kill innocents, he is justified in making the threat he made because he sees it as self defense. How he sees it is irrelevant. The important point is whether it's reasonable for him to see it that way. And reasonable people can have different opinions on that. I think he simply took advantage of the fact that some, particularly those who were already
Again it's not really a question of justification.
How he sees it has everything to do with his intentions.
I am not surprised he took it the way he did. He felt attacked because of the videos TF was making about Muslims. So of course he took it that way. Same reason why TF took DF comment as an unconditional threat, he felt his fears about Muslims were being confirmed. So I think it's an understandable mistake given the situation.
@sonnygll-It sounds like you are grasping at straws so you don't have to accept that TF stirs up drama and demonizes people in a very deceptive way.
I've conceded that point previously. TF may very well have believed Ali didn't mean it the way he said it but he used his own words, and very successfully, to fuck him over, and make him the poster boy for Islamic stupidity, but that still doesn't change the obvious meaning of what he said. lol
@DawahFilms-The fact you keep trying to spin it to make me seem like I want to kill him for just voicing his view on the matter is what is truly insane.
The fact that you said it is what is insane, or what you might expect from a terrorist. You claim now that you didn't mean it, and that you aren't insane, or a terrorist. Since I can't read your mind I can't know whether what you originally said, or what you say now is the truth.
And if I was "on his nuts" I would conclude you meant what you originally said, but like I said one can't come to an intellectually honest conclusion without being able to read your mind. People who claim to know, or believe they know the truth either way are biased based on their opinion of you, or of TF, or both.
If you had said "if you harm innocent people" Muslim, or not is irrelevant it still would have been a death threat, but one that is understandable. However you didn't say that. You said "if you TRY to awaken a sleeping giant. Based on the threat you made if someone were to simply say (as insane as it may be) "President Obama I recommend you nuke the middle east" you would kill him. That may not have been how you meant it, but that is what your words entail. No spin required.
Yea, exactly. I think you must have misunderstood me, because I agree that is what he said. Each took the others statements a threat, and clarified their own statement as not being a threat, as well as rejecting each others clarification.
I just assume all of the above is true to be fair. That doesn't mean it is all true, because obviously we have no way to know. I just wanted to state what happened in the beginning without adding bias to it by accepting one and not the other.
@sonnygll-I just wanted to state what happened in the beginning without adding bias
I'm sorry, but characterizing what TF said as something that could be taken as a threat (fair enough), and then characterizing DF response as "if anyone comes to harm him, or other innocent people he will kill them". Appears biased to me. If that was what DF had actually said we wouldn't be having this discussion, and TF never wouldn't have responded to his video as he did.
I think thunderf00t's history of engaging in this sort of thing with various people indicates he would have gone after DF anyway. He just would have had less ammo. I have a really hard time believing that it's not TF, it's just all the people he has this drama with. But that's just an opinion based on what I have observed.
I was just paraphrasing what he said he meant by it. You seem to be expecting me to take TF at face value, but assume DF was lying. That seems a lot more biased to me.
@sonnygll-I was just paraphrasing what he said he meant
No, you characterized TF's video as ambiguous, while not even pointing out the fact that DF's video at best was far more ambiguous, and I would argue not ambiguous at all. That's a clearly a biased interpretation, or at least presentation. You then go on to imply that people shouldn't find fault with DF death threat, and then misrepresent what they actually find fault with.
"the fact that DF's video at best was far more ambiguous, and I would argue not ambiguous at all."
That sounds pretty biased. How is it a fact that DF video was more ambiguous? How exactly do you quantify that?
Yes, the way he claimed to mean it, you shouldn't find fault with it.
So again, I am simply not accusing either of them of lying about what they meant, or how they took the others videos. You want me to accuse one and not the other though.
How is it biased. It's a literal reading of his words. He says he will kill people for simply TRYING to awaken the sleeping giant. Not for awakening it. Which compared to what he claims to mean is not just ambiguous, but completely different. You also as I said imply that people have a problem with someone defending themselves, which is ridiculous on it's face. They have a problem with threatening people for speaking, even if that speech were in support of war.
Additionally I have conceded (see above) that TF's video could have been misinterpreted, while you deride, and misrepresent those who simply took DF's words literally. There is only one person in this exchange that is biased, and it isn't me.
The free speech thing appears to be a ploy to incite his mob. It's a way to justify whatever they feel like doing (mostly posting hate speech on DF channel and sending death threats).
It really does look like people took the threat literally because he is a Muslim, which is exactly my point here. How people take the threat seems to be related to whether or not you think he's this scary jihadist (as TF portrayed him), or just some average apologist on youtube.
"The free speech thing appears to be a ploy to incite his mob"
"TF seems to enjoy trying to silence his opposition with his angry mob"
Perfect examples of the bias you have brought into your analysis. You analyze everything TF says through the lens of your negative preconceptions, while taking everything DF says, not even at face value, but based on his claims, which of course (even if true) are self-serving.
It's not bias, there is evidence. TF has had these issues with more people than just DF. It always goes the same way. A little demonizing, and then the mob is unleashed. I don't have to interpret anything. It's ironic that you are accusing me of being biased towards DF, when I have gone out of my way to give them both the benefit of the doubt. Your accusation seems to be based on me not being biased against DF as you are, based on your comments.
I wasn't saying those statements were necessarily biased. I'm saying that those statements are indicative of your negative preconceptions which result in bias. Would you honestly want someone who thought you were a dishonest manipulative bigot on your jury, or do you think he would be predisposed to thinking you're guilty. And no you haven't given TF the benefit of the doubt as I explained in previous comments, and I think you know it.
I assumed TF was honest in what he clarified his comment to mean, and what he interpreted DF comment to be. The rest is stuff I observed.
A jury is a different thing entirely. A juror should be making the judgment for the first time.
My granting DF the same thing I granted TF, is your entire basis for calling me biased, when the opposite is true. You keep arguing what DF meant, while accepting TF explanation. I treat them the same there, and the rest is observation.
@sonnygll-My granting DF the same thing I granted TF, is your entire basis for calling me biased
No, it was your failure to do so. You characterized TF's video by saying it could be interpreted as a threat, but DF's video by essentially implying only idiots could interpret it as anything other than self defense in the event that innocents were harmed. That is such a biased interpretation of DF's video it defies reality. lol
I wanted to add that having watched TF's latest video I became aware of the fact that Ali also sent TF's name, and video to the Muslim student organization at Cornell as well as the staff, and according to DF TF hasn't worked there since June. Are you still going to argue that that isn't doc dropping?
Oh I see. No that's not exactly what I was saying there. I was saying DF comment CAN be interpreted as a threat, I've said that in comments to you more than once. What I am saying in the video, is people are idiots when they argue it can ONLY be interpreted as a threat. Maybe I wasn't clear enough on that point. I was also showing that he could have meant it as a self defense statement as he later claimed.
Yes I agree with most people, you are in idiot. Most of us atheists don't follow mindlessly. That is the difference between a brainwashed religious person and someone who seeks evidence at every step of the way. Your whole argument fails from the start because you need to find bigoted comments made by TF towards Muslims first. You need to present the evidence of that to earn any credit towards your argument. Truth is DF insincerely misunderstood TF and did not apologize to TF for that.........
I seriously doubt you have the intellectual capacity to even comprehend my argument, which is actually in the previous video. This one is just an answer to comments people brought up about a side issue.
I agree most of us atheist don't follow blindly, however I am pretty sure that you do. Your comment indicates you are far too dumb to do anything but parrot Thunderf00t.
Evidence? lol I didn't make an empirical claim, retard. Come back after you've had a brain transplant.
@DawahFilms No u confused little idiot. I commented on his other video that he referred to. Premature ejaculation from a Muslim virgin? not getting much ass in Malaysia?
@DawahFilms Hey, you are a good little Muslim now. Stop talking like an evil westerner. Feel sorry for you though. I come from a Muslim background and know what Islam is. You come from an atheist background so you have a good idea what atheism is. Or maybe you are just a liar and your parents are really Christian. Anyway, your sad little sobbing story will ruin your future. Stop before it's too late. I only was angry with you for your obsessive censorship. I don't have anything against you.
Don't have anything against him? That's not what you said in the other thread. There you equated not taking a hardline stand against him with atheists getting killed. Do you have multiple personality disorder or something? Did you a miss a dose of your medication?
@DawahFilms seriously dude, time to just stay away from the computer and leave this whole thing alone for a couple of days. That comment makes you look like you've lost the capacity to rationally make reasonable comments. And sounding reasonable is the only available course of action left for you now.
Go make a video about something totally unrelated, let the trolls comment all over it, then they'll get bored and maybe your channel will recover. But it won't with tit-for-tat comments like that.
@sonnygll "shake head" I also saw his video on Sacrifice. I laughed, I cried, I laugh some more and sometimes cried some more. Fun for the whole family. 0_o
Oh no! Some retard on the internet called me a "dumb fuck"! How am I ever going to counter that? Did you have to huff glue all day in a room full of peeling lead paint, or is it natural? Either way, if you got no argument, go jump off a bridge you puss filled taint tumor. You truly are the necrotic rectal distention oozing out of humanity's anus.
It is actually illegal to kill or threaten to kill someone who "harms" an innocent. For one, it's not self-defense to threaten to kill or kill someone for "harming an innocent" (because it's not you who is being threatened).
The word harm that I am quoting is awfully vague, I'll grant you that although you are being quite pedantic.
Depending on what sort of harm is in progress it very likely is legal, especially when it involves potentially deadly violence. Parents have shot intruders going into a kids and room before, and that was deemed to be justified. Shooting sprees have been stopped by someone shooting the perpetrator. So in the context it was stated in it's legal.
Not to stray from the topic too much, but many states don't have what is commonly known as "the castle doctrine" which, in my estimation, says that one has a right to use lethal force against an intruder. Now, I can't imagine what more potential harm could be assessed as when someone breaks in to your house. With that, I am not certain what Dawah meant when he said "harm". What kind of track record does TF have of "harming" people on the internet? Not enough to justify the threat.
Well that's the reason why I wasn't going to talk about it at first. It's because there are some subjective aspects as well as speculation. For the speculation, I just took both TF and DF at face value just to be fair. So I am assuming they are both telling the truth about what they meant by their statements, and how they took the others statement.
I also left out all the stuff going around about both of them, which can't be substantiated.
The only thing I see happening here is Thunderf00t standing up for free speech and dawah overreacting to what thunderf00t said. It's the same thing that happened with round 2, Thunderf00t didn't even address Dawahfilms, its only been about the issue of free speech. Now he is saying that thunderf00t meant to nuke the middle east, dont know where he got that from.
Well you should probably watch my previous video. This one is really just addressing the stuff I didn't talk about in that video, that they all wanted to talk about. The issues you are talking about are covered more in that video, where I analyze a TF video.
Pat is worse than TF, I agree. HeyRuka is in a different class altogether. She is so dumb I am surprised she can make videos. Pat may be anti-racist but he seems to hate Muslims.
We can't hold TF DIRECTLY responsible for his fans, be we can hold him responsible for making propaganda videos that incite them to do such things.
So Thunderf00t basically adressed extremist muslims and was clearly stating that IF they pulled of another attack on the US, there would be consequences they wouldn't like, then DawahFilms comes along and feels all butthurt and says a lot of bullshit which one could interpret as a death threat, and appearantly Thunderf00t did interpret it as a death threat... that's very much your style of storytelling. Notice something?
@sonnygll I find the way you describe things a bit odd, and I simply turned it around. You seem to make TF words seem a lot worse by describing them hyperbolically, while playing DFs words down, making up excuses for him. Thunderf00t was much less making a threat, but talking about consequences which actually might happen, while DF made a threat in response to TF, if he even tried to bring these consequences about.
It's hard to describe a hyperbole without it being a bit hyperbolic. If you notice I grant both TF and DF their clarification that they were not making threats. That seems more fair than you being certain one is a threat and one isn't.
This is also a response to arguments people made on my last video. So I'm addressing things people said to me.
@sonnygll A conditional threat is still a threat, and Thunderf00t just spoke for the US, which already went to war over a terror attack. I don't know how it could be interpreted as a threat from TF. If the US was attacked again, and TF was in favor of retaliation, eg going to war with a middle eastern country, is DFs condition then fulfilled to kill TF? I find DFs statements much more problematic. And btw, he still claims TF is endorsing genocide against Muslims.
You are speculating about what people meant and how other people took it. I stated them all as the people involved claimed to avoid bias. I don't know if either of them were lying and neither do you.
I don't know how you can find one unsupported statement more problematic than another. The threats were both metaphors FFS.
That's a valid example in some ways. However he probably didn't unleash a mob of people posting hate speech and death threats on your channel page. So in a tit for tat pissing match, I don't think that can be set out as the clear example of crossing the line that people say it is. Now if the videos were not public, then I would be more in agreement with you.
I agree with you on that. Perhaps I was making a hasty judgement based on your apparent bias for TF, and your use of a phrase that usually indicates defense of discrimination, but may not have been in this instance.
Ok, well perhaps I misunderstood you, nothing like that was intended.
Interpreting metaphor is very subjective. I am just saying that is how DF interpreted the TF comment, and what he was trying to say. I'm not saying he is right, in fact I think he probably was mistaken about TF intentions. But you can't give TF the benefit of the doubt because his interpretation matches yours, and not DF because you disagree. I take them both at face value.
Even if you give thunderf00t the least charitable interpretation, thunderf00t doesn't actually threaten to do anything. I interpreted thunderf00t to mean -if the Muslims actually threaten the west, the west has the power to obliterate the Muslims, and if threatened enough, they just might- which is about as bad an interpretation as one could take from it but TF is talking about what he thinks other people will do. People he can't speak for. It's more of a prediction.
Well other people interpreted that differently. They may be wrong, but that interpretation is what motivated their statements, so taking those statements out of the context of their interpretation, and placing into the context of what TF actually meant, changes the meaning of their intended statement. That's the problem when people take something the wrong way and fly off the handle.
@sonnygll-They may be wrong, but that interpretation is what motivated their statements
Again that is what they claim motivated their statements. You, and I can only speculate on what truly motivated their statements. I think I could make a case that they (or at least some) were motivated by their hatred for TF because they believe he's a bigot, and that they intentionally mischaracterized his statements to portray him as a genocidal maniac.
In fact I think I could make a strong case for that given the past history, and statements about TF made by those who characterized his sleeping giant video that way.
I'm sure some people did that. I just state what people said, because just as you say, we can only speculate. But I didn't actually comment on what other people said about TF because that was outside the scope of both videos.
Dawah on the other hand said that all TF has to do is to make a youtube video that attempts to awakien a sleeping giant thats hostile to at least one innocent person and he will personally kill TF. Dawah certainly can speak for himself and he threatened to kill TF if TF so much as "tried" to awaken any kind of "sleeping giant" that's hostile to any innocent person.
Amusingly he made that "warning" over a video description box that accused TF of "calling for genocide" Now here is the kicker.
IF, IF, IF Dawah truly believes that TF was "calling for genocide", THEN, THEN, THEN that certainly qualifies as "trying to awaken a sleeping giant hostile to any innocent person". So the conditions of Dawah's warning were already met by TF according to Dawah IF he truly believed that video was "calling for genocide".
Holy Shit! Thank GOD "sonnygll" is here to comment on this situation. How hilarious is it that Dawahfilms must use the most unknown, worthless atheist youtuber to defend his position.
Everything you wrote there, I could say the same about myself. But being against religion is not the same as being against people. However you seem to be biased against people who are religious, just based on your previous statements. Your statements indicate you are dismissive of people being discriminated based on religion. Maybe they are believing in something dumb, but so do lots of people.
A person who dislikes a video like this is a member of BTI (Back To Illiteracy) movement. This man has shown us how to analyze bullshit and extract the truth, it would be even unscientific of "TF SUBS" who supposedly 'love' science to dislike this video, because in science we don't bullshit and hide the truth.
So if a teacher decides to have sex with children in his private life, he clearly should teach children in a school. Your private life has everything to do with your public life. You cannot go out and be a KKK member and then go teach multiracial students.
@UKBOXlNGFAN-sorry i was only generalising thunderfoots followers not all Atheists?
What constitutes a TF follower? Someone who agrees with everything he says (I haven't seen any of those), someone who agrees with some of what he says, or someone who is simply subscribed to him?
If I go into a TF video and give ANY criticism, I am branded a troll, and all my arguments are dismissed out of hand, same thing with Pat Condell. Not that there aren't a few reasonable people in there though. Not so much with other atheist channels though. You can go into an Amazingatheist video and say "Shut up TJ you fat fuck", and nobody will say shit.
For some reason I was never notified about this comment. I have to say I disagree to an extent. I've made comments critical of TF, and never been branded as a troll. I think it depends on how it's worded. In fact I've found myself more likely to be branded a troll for making a critical comment on a Coughlan, or a BionicDance video to name a couple off the top of my head. In fact BD, and Coughlan do the labeling themselves actively encouraging their fans to follow suit.
I have never noticed anything like that, with the exception of BD herself getting rather touchy sometimes.
I certainly do disagree with just labeling someone a troll as a sort of ad hominem to evade criticism.
However I have noticed people calling people who disagree in a rude way trolls lately, when traditionally a troll was just someone trying to get a rise out of everyone.
@TheNakedAtheist you ve'nt seen any don't means there isn't any......Most of TF followers are bullies & trolls if you don't agree with them than all they are preaching goes out of the windows e.g free speech etc....
@UKBOXlNGFAN exactly. Its such a shame cause it makes it seem as if a freethinking society can not exist or at least not as a large community. They say they'r against religion but the truth is they just hate Islam. Last week one of the top rated comments on TF's DF doc droppin vid was a theist, he was only top rated because he bashed islam, he even put god bless at the end of his comment. If you don't agree with them you are a muslim, muslim defender, a poe atheist or even blocked. Its pathetic.
I hadn't considered the implications of the TF phenomenon. However I think you have a point there. It may be that most people do not have the intelligence and empathy required to have a truly rational, peaceful society. So we may get rid of religion and all the things that go with it, including superstition and divisiveness, but still end up with in group/out group hostility based on other criteria for group identity.
@DominoRolld Youtube videos with 100K+ views are NOT private. What you share in the public is your responsibility, if you upload possibly incriminating information on a public forum like a blog or youtube channel then that is your own fault. If you don;t agree with the universities policies don't go to that university.
@DominoRolld So? Why would he get fired? They don't fire people for no reason now do they? What if you believe that what that person does is against the rules of that university ? Don't you have the obligation to spread that public information to that university? Wouldn't it actually be moral to do that? I mean if it isn't against the rules then it doesn't matter, if it is against the rules you have acted accordingly.
Good observation about the word try. I don't think I ever even noticed that in the statement. Some have argued that DF death threat is hollow because TF could never awaken the sleeping giant, but he certainly could try to awaken the sleeping giant. I've heard people quite often say "we should nuke the whole middle east", I guess by Dawah's standard "as mandated in the Qur'an" those people should die.
That makes absolutely no sense. Any "sleeping giant" that someone would try to awaken against Islam would by default be hostile. Do you even know what the word hostile means? The very act of trying to awake the sleeping giant is a hostile one. I hope that face-palm was directed at a mirror. lol
agreed TF produces propagandist vids ,but he does have the right to do so without having his personal life effected . on a pragmatic level the anonimity of the internet does allow people to say what they really think ,this allows a vibrancy in the exchange of ideas ,would be a shame if that was lost due to doc dropping .
Oh my god the amount of religion hating dick fuckers in this place is fucking amazing! Your all a bunch of racist motherfucking dick riders who need to stop choking on thunderfoots retarded DICK! Im not a Dawahfilms supporter so dont even bother going there! You people dont give a shit about if the argument is valid, all you give a shit about is carrying on this crappy crusade against religion like a bunch of uneducated dicks!
Bigotry confirmed. You also apparently haven't the foggiest fucking idea about logically sound arguments. Generalizations like guilt by association are logical fallacies.
Also please explain how a statement of self defense is lunacy.
If that's the best you have please go get an education before commenting further.
How is it self defense for DF, and his allies to kill TF for what the sleeping giant might do?
Here's an analogy of how I see it. TF said if you walk on lawn my uncle Joe will likely kill you, and you're entire family, and Dawah's response. If Joe does that I'll kill you. So he personally threatened to kill TF for something someone else might do if pushed. I don't understand how anyone could see it otherwise.
In fact knowing that TF claims to be a pacifist I would amend it to call Joe his crazy uncle Joe. The sleeping giant being awoken is the last thing he would want to see happen because we'd all suffer.
It's assumed that the sleeping giant will commit genocide or suchlike through stomping on innocent people. That's by definition. We don't wait till the sleeping giant actually commits genocide before we decide it's done anything wrong.
I should have been clearer for dim-bulbs. He simply threatens TF for TRYING to awaken the sleeping giant. So while what they will do is a given it is contingent on that success in awakening them. He might, or might not awaken them if he tried.
Let's say that someone has a gun and tries to shoot your family. They may not succeed to shoot your family because the gun may jam. Hopefully you will have attempted to intervene before that happens.
Now you're just being ridiculous. At worst in that analogy TF would be trying to convince someone to pick up the gun, and even if he succeeded the person who used the gun would be the one responsible. For entertainment value let's grant your argument. By that standard anyone who says "let's nuke the bastards" should be killed, or do you have to have a certain number of you-tube subs to earn the death penalty? lol
Your words don't threaten to kill TF for "trying to nuke someone" You threaten him if he tries to convince someone to nuke you. In other words if he tries to awaken the sleeping giant, it's not conditional on him awakening the sleeping giant. Saying "Lets nuke the bastards" is precisely that, it's suggesting the sleeping giant be awoken. You have a real problem with English comprehension. Perhaps that's what started all this in the first place.
Hostile can imply a lot of things depending on what is being inferred. I was responding to MILITARY RHETORIC. You know what they call the enemy in the military? HOSTILES.
Exactly, or in other words unfriendlies. The fact that someone is unfriendly doesn't imply that they are actively engaged in hostilities. So in other words you're threatening to kill people for trying to convince people to be unfriendly. lol
So you finally looked up the word, and you still got it wrong. "That engages in hostilities" would be a sleeping giant that is more than just awoken. The "sleeping giant" was awoken, and was hostile towards Japan when the attack on pearl harbor took place, prior to any active hostilities. You also got the instigator wrong. It wouldn't be TF that would awaken the sleeping giant it would be Islamic extremists.
And you evidence for the assertion that that is what he thought is? What you mean is that is what DF claims to have thought. And no, that is what he said he would do if TF simply tried to get people to come after him.
So we should take TF at his word, but not DF? That seems biased. I take them both at their word on this. There is no reason not to, and less to be inconsistent about it.
Could you point out where I claimed knowledge as to what TF thought. I'm not saying I didn't, but I'd like to see the context so I can retract it if necessary, because I can't possibly know what people are thinking.
Well you said that what thunderf00t said wasn't a threat. But my point was that you accept that because you agree with it, as do I. However you are not willing to accept DF clarification of his statement when people interpreted that as a threat. Same thing with questioning how each interprets the other. You are willing to believe one and not the other. I don't see why we should question what they said when we can't know anything about it.
Were you trying to reply to someone? I didn't say anything about genocide.
Your comment makes me think that you didn't watch the video. The bit about Getting fired for being politically incorrect makes me think you're probably a bigot too. Just a guess, but that what your comment implies.
This is the fist video I've seen by you ever. I really like how you articulated what you were saying and how you weren't really taking sides.. just seemed like common sense and logic.
Having re-watched your video, and the wording of DF threat I have to point out that you mischaracterized the threat. He didn't threaten to kill people who comes to harm him or other innocent people. He threatens to kill people who simply TRY to convince people to to come to harm him, or other innocent people. Even IF TF were suggesting the nuclear option to deal with Muslim extremists, though I think he clearly wasn't, he has the right to express that opinion.
(cont)
TheNakedAtheist 4 months ago
(cont)
Additionally if DF hadn't cited the Qu'ran when he issued his threat to kill TF for simply trying to awaken the "sleeping giant". I would say his religion was irrelevant. But the use of religious texts to justify things like killing people simply for expressing their right to free speech is one of the issues many of us have with religion.
TheNakedAtheist 4 months ago
@TheNakedAtheist
But that's how you view it. That's not how TF and DF claimed they viewed it. That's why I was reluctant to make this video. There are many unknowns and subjective value judgements that intersect.
I think our disagreement boils down to which criteria for relative moral judgement we place more value on.
sonnygll 4 months ago
@sonnygll
Why do you say that isn't how TF views it? And if he doesn't I would say he's wrong. How else could you interpret what DF's said. His words are pretty clear "If you TRY to awaken a sleeping giant"?
TheNakedAtheist 4 months ago
Continued...
In fact having just re-watched "Death Threats from 'moderate Muslims", TF's reply to the threat. It seems that is how TF saw it. He doesn't characterize DF's threat as being in response to some attack on Muslims, but an attack on his (TF's) right to free speech. Which is consistent with the wording of DF threat.
TheNakedAtheist 4 months ago
Continued...
Sorry for adding more comments, but TF specifically does indeed claim that was how he saw it. In the followup video entitled 'The Sleeping Giant'. Where he says "Dawahfilms states that if I, this is me personally, or anyone like me merely attempts to arose the aforementioned sleeping giant, that means for merely trying. He, him personally, and his fellow Muslims must kill me".
TheNakedAtheist 4 months ago
@TheNakedAtheist
Then how come in his video "Doc hunting DawahFilms" he states he didn't take my "threat" seriously as a threat at all?
DawahFilms 4 months ago
@DawahFilms
You got a point there. That is very different than what he said about it last year too. That could be evidence that he was being deceptive last year.
sonnygll 4 months ago
@DawahFilms-how come in his video "Doc hunting DawahFilms" he states he didn't take my "threat" seriously as a threat at all?
Because he knows, or assumes you don't have the wherewithal, or the guts to follow through with it. That doesn't mean he doesn't think you seriously wish him dead, or that you wouldn't kill him if you could get away with it.
TheNakedAtheist 4 months ago
@TheNakedAtheist
No, what it means is that he's lying to you.
In Defamation law its called "neglect" when miscontextualize a persons statement AFTER theyve given clarifications. I released 2 videos prior to his accusation against me. He has Defamed me, wether you like it or not.
DawahFilms 4 months ago
@DawahFilms
Claiming you didn't mean something as a threat doesn't make it so, nor does it obligate the person to accept it as true. And no, it might be neglect if you were able to provide proof that you didn't mean it as you said it, and that proof was ignored. And proving such a thing is impossible.
TheNakedAtheist 4 months ago
Continued...
I mean the only "clarification" you can give is claiming that you didn't mean what you said. I wouldn't call that a clarification. If you had worded the threat in a way that open to misinterpretation, and then clarified it you might have a point, but what you said, at least to me, is pretty unambiguous.
TheNakedAtheist 4 months ago
@TheNakedAtheist
The proof is in my clarification.
You seem to think that mind reading equates to evidence.
DawahFilms 4 months ago
@DawahFilms-You seem to think that mind reading equates to evidence.
That's ironic because it is in fact you that expects people to read minds. You say you will kill people for simply trying to awaken the sleeping giant, and then claim that isn't what you meant. That would only be evidence if we could read your mind, and determine whether it actually isn't what you meant, as opposed to claiming it isn't what you meant because it got widespread negative attention that you didn't expect.
TheNakedAtheist 4 months ago
Comment removed
TheNakedAtheist 4 months ago
Continued from.. that you didn't expect.
Your claim that you didn't mean what you said is only evidence that you claim not to have meant what you said. It's not evidence that you didn't mean what you said.
TheNakedAtheist 4 months ago
@TheNakedAtheist
Except the grammar of my words (yes, Im much better at english than you) insist otherwise. An active verb of "IS HOSTILE" in response to military rhetoric insist that the TRYING was achieved.
The fact you keep trying to spin it to make me seem like I want to kill him for just voicing his view on the matter is what is truly insane.
You really are on his nuts.
DawahFilms 4 months ago in playlist Liked
@DawahFilms
Again if you has said "If you TRY to awaken". Prior to it being awoken it IS NOT hostile. The
TheNakedAtheist 4 months ago
@TheNakedAtheist
And you can try and focus on that all you want. The FACT is that my statement is no different than saying "If you try to kill my family and they end of dead". Same grammar. Same meaning.
You're pathetic, as usual. You can't win this argument. You have absolutely nothing. If this was brought into court the judge would laugh at your stupidity.
DawahFilms 4 months ago
@DawahFilms
No, at it's best your statement is no different than saying. "If you try to incite someone to kill my family, I will kill you" Also you're alone in your claim that the statement on it's face means anything like what you claim. The few people who defend you do so because they believe you didn't actually mean it as you said it. And hurling invectives only displays your feelings of impotence at your inability to convince others using rational arguments.
TheNakedAtheist 4 months ago
Continued...
And that's not because they are ignoring rational arguments, but because it's impossible to make what you said mean something else using them. You're expecting people to take your word for it on faith. While faith might be something you value as a virtue, most atheists don't.
TheNakedAtheist 4 months ago
@TheNakedAtheist
I don't know how anyone can have so much certainty about these metaphors.
Here is one thing we do know. DF statement was conditional. That's a very strange way to threaten someone, It's also negated if the condition isn't met. If TF was not threatening, the condition will never be met thereby negating what DF said.
It sounds like you are grasping at straws so you don't have to accept that TF stirs up drama and demonizes people in a very deceptive way.
sonnygll 4 months ago
@sonnygll
It's a conditional threat for sure, and DF is clearly with the "if you ever" part saying the conditions have yet to be met. Explain how "If you try to awaken" can mean anything other than "if you try to awaken". I've yet to hear any argument that makes it mean anything else except for DF's claim, but that only changes what he meant, not what he said.
TheNakedAtheist 4 months ago
@TheNakedAtheist
It means whatever TF meant by "awaken the sleeping giant", or at least what people THOUGHT he meant, which could be mistaken. I thought it was just jingoist bluster, and therefore meant nothing at all, but that's just my personal opinion. I thought it was all bluster and bullshit from two people who were never going to do anything in the first place.
sonnygll 4 months ago
@sonnygll-It means whatever TF meant by "awaken the sleeping giant", or at least what people THOUGHT he meant, which could be mistaken.
That implies that however someone interprets a statement or act (no matter how unreasonable that interpretation might be) they are justified in responding based on that interpretation.
TheNakedAtheist 4 months ago
@TheNakedAtheist
I think "justified" is a mischaracterization. What they thought, is what they thought, even if most of us might think it was stupid. So it's not that they are justified, so much as we can understand they took it the wrong way.
This of course applies much less to a literal statement. However this metaphor could really bring up any sort of WW2 related ideas, and associations thereof. So it takes on the meaning of whatever is in the listeners mind.
sonnygll 4 months ago
@sonnygll
But in the video you are justifying it. Your are saying that since DF believes what TF said equates to a threat to kill innocents, he is justified in making the threat he made because he sees it as self defense. How he sees it is irrelevant. The important point is whether it's reasonable for him to see it that way. And reasonable people can have different opinions on that. I think he simply took advantage of the fact that some, particularly those who were already
(cont)
TheNakedAtheist 4 months ago
(cont)
biased against TF, would see it that way if he spun it that way.
TheNakedAtheist 4 months ago
@TheNakedAtheist
Again it's not really a question of justification.
How he sees it has everything to do with his intentions.
I am not surprised he took it the way he did. He felt attacked because of the videos TF was making about Muslims. So of course he took it that way. Same reason why TF took DF comment as an unconditional threat, he felt his fears about Muslims were being confirmed. So I think it's an understandable mistake given the situation.
sonnygll 4 months ago
@sonnygll-It sounds like you are grasping at straws so you don't have to accept that TF stirs up drama and demonizes people in a very deceptive way.
I've conceded that point previously. TF may very well have believed Ali didn't mean it the way he said it but he used his own words, and very successfully, to fuck him over, and make him the poster boy for Islamic stupidity, but that still doesn't change the obvious meaning of what he said. lol
TheNakedAtheist 4 months ago
@DawahFilms-The fact you keep trying to spin it to make me seem like I want to kill him for just voicing his view on the matter is what is truly insane.
The fact that you said it is what is insane, or what you might expect from a terrorist. You claim now that you didn't mean it, and that you aren't insane, or a terrorist. Since I can't read your mind I can't know whether what you originally said, or what you say now is the truth.
TheNakedAtheist 4 months ago
Continued....
And if I was "on his nuts" I would conclude you meant what you originally said, but like I said one can't come to an intellectually honest conclusion without being able to read your mind. People who claim to know, or believe they know the truth either way are biased based on their opinion of you, or of TF, or both.
TheNakedAtheist 4 months ago
@TheNakedAtheist
But it isnt consistent at all. How is "If you harm innocent muslim or non-Muslim people" = death threat against your free speech against Muslims?
This is YOU and TF trying to spin it. That's all.
DawahFilms 4 months ago
@DawahFilms
If you had said "if you harm innocent people" Muslim, or not is irrelevant it still would have been a death threat, but one that is understandable. However you didn't say that. You said "if you TRY to awaken a sleeping giant. Based on the threat you made if someone were to simply say (as insane as it may be) "President Obama I recommend you nuke the middle east" you would kill him. That may not have been how you meant it, but that is what your words entail. No spin required.
TheNakedAtheist 4 months ago
@TheNakedAtheist
Yea, exactly. I think you must have misunderstood me, because I agree that is what he said. Each took the others statements a threat, and clarified their own statement as not being a threat, as well as rejecting each others clarification.
I just assume all of the above is true to be fair. That doesn't mean it is all true, because obviously we have no way to know. I just wanted to state what happened in the beginning without adding bias to it by accepting one and not the other.
sonnygll 4 months ago
@sonnygll-I just wanted to state what happened in the beginning without adding bias
I'm sorry, but characterizing what TF said as something that could be taken as a threat (fair enough), and then characterizing DF response as "if anyone comes to harm him, or other innocent people he will kill them". Appears biased to me. If that was what DF had actually said we wouldn't be having this discussion, and TF never wouldn't have responded to his video as he did.
(cont)
TheNakedAtheist 4 months ago
(cont)
Except perhaps to clarify the sleeping giant reference.
TheNakedAtheist 4 months ago
@TheNakedAtheist
I think thunderf00t's history of engaging in this sort of thing with various people indicates he would have gone after DF anyway. He just would have had less ammo. I have a really hard time believing that it's not TF, it's just all the people he has this drama with. But that's just an opinion based on what I have observed.
sonnygll 4 months ago
@TheNakedAtheist
I was just paraphrasing what he said he meant by it. You seem to be expecting me to take TF at face value, but assume DF was lying. That seems a lot more biased to me.
sonnygll 4 months ago
@sonnygll-I was just paraphrasing what he said he meant
No, you characterized TF's video as ambiguous, while not even pointing out the fact that DF's video at best was far more ambiguous, and I would argue not ambiguous at all. That's a clearly a biased interpretation, or at least presentation. You then go on to imply that people shouldn't find fault with DF death threat, and then misrepresent what they actually find fault with.
TheNakedAtheist 4 months ago
@TheNakedAtheist
"the fact that DF's video at best was far more ambiguous, and I would argue not ambiguous at all."
That sounds pretty biased. How is it a fact that DF video was more ambiguous? How exactly do you quantify that?
Yes, the way he claimed to mean it, you shouldn't find fault with it.
So again, I am simply not accusing either of them of lying about what they meant, or how they took the others videos. You want me to accuse one and not the other though.
sonnygll 4 months ago
@sonnygll
How is it biased. It's a literal reading of his words. He says he will kill people for simply TRYING to awaken the sleeping giant. Not for awakening it. Which compared to what he claims to mean is not just ambiguous, but completely different. You also as I said imply that people have a problem with someone defending themselves, which is ridiculous on it's face. They have a problem with threatening people for speaking, even if that speech were in support of war.
TheNakedAtheist 4 months ago
Continued...
Additionally I have conceded (see above) that TF's video could have been misinterpreted, while you deride, and misrepresent those who simply took DF's words literally. There is only one person in this exchange that is biased, and it isn't me.
TheNakedAtheist 4 months ago
@TheNakedAtheist (part1)
I never said I was talking about you with the self defense thing. That was aimed at the fanboys, not you. I know your argument is entirely different.
I'm also not saying it can't be interpreted as threat, in fact I said at least one person (TF) did see it that way.
I think "try" means that it will be a failed attempt because he will be stopped.
TF seems to enjoy trying to silence his opposition with his angry mob, so I don't buy the "free speech" bullshit.
sonnygll 4 months ago
@TheNakedAtheist (part2)
The free speech thing appears to be a ploy to incite his mob. It's a way to justify whatever they feel like doing (mostly posting hate speech on DF channel and sending death threats).
It really does look like people took the threat literally because he is a Muslim, which is exactly my point here. How people take the threat seems to be related to whether or not you think he's this scary jihadist (as TF portrayed him), or just some average apologist on youtube.
sonnygll 4 months ago
@sonnygll-I think "try" means that it will be a failed attempt because he will be stopped.
Exactly, because Ali would killing him for trying.
TheNakedAtheist 4 months ago
@sonnygll
"The free speech thing appears to be a ploy to incite his mob"
"TF seems to enjoy trying to silence his opposition with his angry mob"
Perfect examples of the bias you have brought into your analysis. You analyze everything TF says through the lens of your negative preconceptions, while taking everything DF says, not even at face value, but based on his claims, which of course (even if true) are self-serving.
TheNakedAtheist 4 months ago
@TheNakedAtheist
It's not bias, there is evidence. TF has had these issues with more people than just DF. It always goes the same way. A little demonizing, and then the mob is unleashed. I don't have to interpret anything. It's ironic that you are accusing me of being biased towards DF, when I have gone out of my way to give them both the benefit of the doubt. Your accusation seems to be based on me not being biased against DF as you are, based on your comments.
sonnygll 4 months ago
@sonnygll
I wasn't saying those statements were necessarily biased. I'm saying that those statements are indicative of your negative preconceptions which result in bias. Would you honestly want someone who thought you were a dishonest manipulative bigot on your jury, or do you think he would be predisposed to thinking you're guilty. And no you haven't given TF the benefit of the doubt as I explained in previous comments, and I think you know it.
TheNakedAtheist 4 months ago
@TheNakedAtheist
I assumed TF was honest in what he clarified his comment to mean, and what he interpreted DF comment to be. The rest is stuff I observed.
A jury is a different thing entirely. A juror should be making the judgment for the first time.
My granting DF the same thing I granted TF, is your entire basis for calling me biased, when the opposite is true. You keep arguing what DF meant, while accepting TF explanation. I treat them the same there, and the rest is observation.
sonnygll 4 months ago
@sonnygll-My granting DF the same thing I granted TF, is your entire basis for calling me biased
No, it was your failure to do so. You characterized TF's video by saying it could be interpreted as a threat, but DF's video by essentially implying only idiots could interpret it as anything other than self defense in the event that innocents were harmed. That is such a biased interpretation of DF's video it defies reality. lol
TheNakedAtheist 4 months ago
Continued...
I wanted to add that having watched TF's latest video I became aware of the fact that Ali also sent TF's name, and video to the Muslim student organization at Cornell as well as the staff, and according to DF TF hasn't worked there since June. Are you still going to argue that that isn't doc dropping?
TheNakedAtheist 4 months ago
@TheNakedAtheist
Oh I see. No that's not exactly what I was saying there. I was saying DF comment CAN be interpreted as a threat, I've said that in comments to you more than once. What I am saying in the video, is people are idiots when they argue it can ONLY be interpreted as a threat. Maybe I wasn't clear enough on that point. I was also showing that he could have meant it as a self defense statement as he later claimed.
sonnygll 4 months ago
@TheNakedAtheist
TF said he took that as a threat. That's all I know. I can't say I find most metaphors to be all that clear.
sonnygll 4 months ago
king missle. right on.
neglectoid 4 months ago
@neglectoid
:) Very observant. You might say I have a detachable outro. lol
sonnygll 4 months ago
Yes I agree with most people, you are in idiot. Most of us atheists don't follow mindlessly. That is the difference between a brainwashed religious person and someone who seeks evidence at every step of the way. Your whole argument fails from the start because you need to find bigoted comments made by TF towards Muslims first. You need to present the evidence of that to earn any credit towards your argument. Truth is DF insincerely misunderstood TF and did not apologize to TF for that.........
sh00008 4 months ago
@sh00008
I seriously doubt you have the intellectual capacity to even comprehend my argument, which is actually in the previous video. This one is just an answer to comments people brought up about a side issue.
I agree most of us atheist don't follow blindly, however I am pretty sure that you do. Your comment indicates you are far too dumb to do anything but parrot Thunderf00t.
Evidence? lol I didn't make an empirical claim, retard. Come back after you've had a brain transplant.
sonnygll 4 months ago
@sonnygll lol....
sh00008 4 months ago
@sh00008
Thats all you can do is laugh.
You are such a twat. Learn how to reason correctly or stfu.
DawahFilms 4 months ago
@DawahFilms No u confused little idiot. I commented on his other video that he referred to. Premature ejaculation from a Muslim virgin? not getting much ass in Malaysia?
sh00008 4 months ago
@sh00008
I dont rape little boys like you, so no, I wouldn't know.
Go get whipped by daddy again. Im sure you miss the action.
DawahFilms 4 months ago
@DawahFilms Hey, you are a good little Muslim now. Stop talking like an evil westerner. Feel sorry for you though. I come from a Muslim background and know what Islam is. You come from an atheist background so you have a good idea what atheism is. Or maybe you are just a liar and your parents are really Christian. Anyway, your sad little sobbing story will ruin your future. Stop before it's too late. I only was angry with you for your obsessive censorship. I don't have anything against you.
sh00008 4 months ago
@sh00008
Don't have anything against him? That's not what you said in the other thread. There you equated not taking a hardline stand against him with atheists getting killed. Do you have multiple personality disorder or something? Did you a miss a dose of your medication?
sonnygll 4 months ago
@sonnygll lol. I was trying to be nice. Maybe he will "unblock" me!
sh00008 4 months ago
@sh00008
lol Ok, now that was funny. I like that.
sonnygll 4 months ago
@sh00008
Trying to be nice? You are a sorry excuse for a son. Your parents should have disowned you for your stupidity a long time ago.
DawahFilms 4 months ago
@DawahFilms seriously dude, time to just stay away from the computer and leave this whole thing alone for a couple of days. That comment makes you look like you've lost the capacity to rationally make reasonable comments. And sounding reasonable is the only available course of action left for you now.
Go make a video about something totally unrelated, let the trolls comment all over it, then they'll get bored and maybe your channel will recover. But it won't with tit-for-tat comments like that.
Aaron1975melbourne 4 months ago
@sh00008 You are not serious, are you? You must be trolling.
cguevara12 4 months ago
@cguevara12
I have had a discussion with him. Unfortunately he is actually serious. I think it has to do with some misplaced anger.
sonnygll 4 months ago
@sonnygll "shake head" I also saw his video on Sacrifice. I laughed, I cried, I laugh some more and sometimes cried some more. Fun for the whole family. 0_o
cguevara12 4 months ago
@cguevara12
lol I can only imagine. I opted not to subject myself to that.
sonnygll 4 months ago
You are truly a dumb fuck.
00ismaeL001a 4 months ago
@00ismaeL001a
Oh no! Some retard on the internet called me a "dumb fuck"! How am I ever going to counter that? Did you have to huff glue all day in a room full of peeling lead paint, or is it natural? Either way, if you got no argument, go jump off a bridge you puss filled taint tumor. You truly are the necrotic rectal distention oozing out of humanity's anus.
sonnygll 4 months ago
It is actually illegal to kill or threaten to kill someone who "harms" an innocent. For one, it's not self-defense to threaten to kill or kill someone for "harming an innocent" (because it's not you who is being threatened).
kurtmj76 4 months ago
@kurtmj76
The word harm that I am quoting is awfully vague, I'll grant you that although you are being quite pedantic.
Depending on what sort of harm is in progress it very likely is legal, especially when it involves potentially deadly violence. Parents have shot intruders going into a kids and room before, and that was deemed to be justified. Shooting sprees have been stopped by someone shooting the perpetrator. So in the context it was stated in it's legal.
sonnygll 4 months ago
@sonnygll
Not to stray from the topic too much, but many states don't have what is commonly known as "the castle doctrine" which, in my estimation, says that one has a right to use lethal force against an intruder. Now, I can't imagine what more potential harm could be assessed as when someone breaks in to your house. With that, I am not certain what Dawah meant when he said "harm". What kind of track record does TF have of "harming" people on the internet? Not enough to justify the threat.
kurtmj76 4 months ago
@kurtmj76
Well that's the reason why I wasn't going to talk about it at first. It's because there are some subjective aspects as well as speculation. For the speculation, I just took both TF and DF at face value just to be fair. So I am assuming they are both telling the truth about what they meant by their statements, and how they took the others statement.
I also left out all the stuff going around about both of them, which can't be substantiated.
sonnygll 4 months ago
@sonnygll
I see you're frmo St. Louis. Good luck with those Cards this year. Maybe Theo can help the Cubs...
kurtmj76 4 months ago
@kurtmj76
Yea, I'm from Saint Louis. Thanks. I have only been able to watch a little here and there, but I'm hoping they hang there.
sonnygll 4 months ago
The only thing I see happening here is Thunderf00t standing up for free speech and dawah overreacting to what thunderf00t said. It's the same thing that happened with round 2, Thunderf00t didn't even address Dawahfilms, its only been about the issue of free speech. Now he is saying that thunderf00t meant to nuke the middle east, dont know where he got that from.
fighterace2688 4 months ago
@fighterace2688
Well you should probably watch my previous video. This one is really just addressing the stuff I didn't talk about in that video, that they all wanted to talk about. The issues you are talking about are covered more in that video, where I analyze a TF video.
sonnygll 4 months ago
@DominoRolld
Pat is worse than TF, I agree. HeyRuka is in a different class altogether. She is so dumb I am surprised she can make videos. Pat may be anti-racist but he seems to hate Muslims.
We can't hold TF DIRECTLY responsible for his fans, be we can hold him responsible for making propaganda videos that incite them to do such things.
sonnygll 4 months ago
So Thunderf00t basically adressed extremist muslims and was clearly stating that IF they pulled of another attack on the US, there would be consequences they wouldn't like, then DawahFilms comes along and feels all butthurt and says a lot of bullshit which one could interpret as a death threat, and appearantly Thunderf00t did interpret it as a death threat... that's very much your style of storytelling. Notice something?
t3nGu666 4 months ago
@t3nGu666
I notice that I don't really know what you are talking about or trying to imply here.
sonnygll 4 months ago
@sonnygll I find the way you describe things a bit odd, and I simply turned it around. You seem to make TF words seem a lot worse by describing them hyperbolically, while playing DFs words down, making up excuses for him. Thunderf00t was much less making a threat, but talking about consequences which actually might happen, while DF made a threat in response to TF, if he even tried to bring these consequences about.
t3nGu666 4 months ago
@t3nGu666
It's hard to describe a hyperbole without it being a bit hyperbolic. If you notice I grant both TF and DF their clarification that they were not making threats. That seems more fair than you being certain one is a threat and one isn't.
This is also a response to arguments people made on my last video. So I'm addressing things people said to me.
sonnygll 4 months ago
@sonnygll A conditional threat is still a threat, and Thunderf00t just spoke for the US, which already went to war over a terror attack. I don't know how it could be interpreted as a threat from TF. If the US was attacked again, and TF was in favor of retaliation, eg going to war with a middle eastern country, is DFs condition then fulfilled to kill TF? I find DFs statements much more problematic. And btw, he still claims TF is endorsing genocide against Muslims.
t3nGu666 4 months ago
@t3nGu666
You are speculating about what people meant and how other people took it. I stated them all as the people involved claimed to avoid bias. I don't know if either of them were lying and neither do you.
I don't know how you can find one unsupported statement more problematic than another. The threats were both metaphors FFS.
sonnygll 4 months ago
@DominoRolld
That's a valid example in some ways. However he probably didn't unleash a mob of people posting hate speech and death threats on your channel page. So in a tit for tat pissing match, I don't think that can be set out as the clear example of crossing the line that people say it is. Now if the videos were not public, then I would be more in agreement with you.
sonnygll 4 months ago
@DominoRolld
I agree with you on that. Perhaps I was making a hasty judgement based on your apparent bias for TF, and your use of a phrase that usually indicates defense of discrimination, but may not have been in this instance.
sonnygll 4 months ago
@DominoRolld
Ok, well perhaps I misunderstood you, nothing like that was intended.
Interpreting metaphor is very subjective. I am just saying that is how DF interpreted the TF comment, and what he was trying to say. I'm not saying he is right, in fact I think he probably was mistaken about TF intentions. But you can't give TF the benefit of the doubt because his interpretation matches yours, and not DF because you disagree. I take them both at face value.
sonnygll 4 months ago
@sonnygll
Even if you give thunderf00t the least charitable interpretation, thunderf00t doesn't actually threaten to do anything. I interpreted thunderf00t to mean -if the Muslims actually threaten the west, the west has the power to obliterate the Muslims, and if threatened enough, they just might- which is about as bad an interpretation as one could take from it but TF is talking about what he thinks other people will do. People he can't speak for. It's more of a prediction.
DickJohnson3434 4 months ago
@DickJohnson3434
Well other people interpreted that differently. They may be wrong, but that interpretation is what motivated their statements, so taking those statements out of the context of their interpretation, and placing into the context of what TF actually meant, changes the meaning of their intended statement. That's the problem when people take something the wrong way and fly off the handle.
sonnygll 4 months ago
@sonnygll-They may be wrong, but that interpretation is what motivated their statements
Again that is what they claim motivated their statements. You, and I can only speculate on what truly motivated their statements. I think I could make a case that they (or at least some) were motivated by their hatred for TF because they believe he's a bigot, and that they intentionally mischaracterized his statements to portray him as a genocidal maniac.
TheNakedAtheist 4 months ago
Continued...
In fact I think I could make a strong case for that given the past history, and statements about TF made by those who characterized his sleeping giant video that way.
TheNakedAtheist 4 months ago
Continued...
On the other hand they may have honestly interpreted it that way as a result of confirmation bias. We, as I said, can only speculate.
TheNakedAtheist 4 months ago
@TheNakedAtheist
Yes, that's right.
sonnygll 4 months ago
@TheNakedAtheist
I'm sure some people did that. I just state what people said, because just as you say, we can only speculate. But I didn't actually comment on what other people said about TF because that was outside the scope of both videos.
sonnygll 4 months ago
Dawah on the other hand said that all TF has to do is to make a youtube video that attempts to awakien a sleeping giant thats hostile to at least one innocent person and he will personally kill TF. Dawah certainly can speak for himself and he threatened to kill TF if TF so much as "tried" to awaken any kind of "sleeping giant" that's hostile to any innocent person.
DickJohnson3434 4 months ago
@DickJohnson3434 cont...
Amusingly he made that "warning" over a video description box that accused TF of "calling for genocide" Now here is the kicker.
IF, IF, IF Dawah truly believes that TF was "calling for genocide", THEN, THEN, THEN that certainly qualifies as "trying to awaken a sleeping giant hostile to any innocent person". So the conditions of Dawah's warning were already met by TF according to Dawah IF he truly believed that video was "calling for genocide".
DickJohnson3434 4 months ago
@DickJohnson3434
That's entirely too much speculation for me. I left all of that sort of thing out of my video for a reason.
A lot of people seem to be forgetting my "I never said the man was perfect" disclaimer too.
sonnygll 4 months ago
Holy Shit! Thank GOD "sonnygll" is here to comment on this situation. How hilarious is it that Dawahfilms must use the most unknown, worthless atheist youtuber to defend his position.
JohnGolbunny 4 months ago
@JohnGolbunny
Oh one of my most amusing trolls is back, with his equally amusing opinions.
sonnygll 4 months ago
@DominoRolld
That's a straw man. I said no such thing. I am at a loss to even figure out what you are talking about.
sonnygll 4 months ago
@DominoRolld
Everything you wrote there, I could say the same about myself. But being against religion is not the same as being against people. However you seem to be biased against people who are religious, just based on your previous statements. Your statements indicate you are dismissive of people being discriminated based on religion. Maybe they are believing in something dumb, but so do lots of people.
sonnygll 4 months ago
nice video
multixenon54 4 months ago
A person who dislikes a video like this is a member of BTI (Back To Illiteracy) movement. This man has shown us how to analyze bullshit and extract the truth, it would be even unscientific of "TF SUBS" who supposedly 'love' science to dislike this video, because in science we don't bullshit and hide the truth.
Thanks for this nice video buddy. Keep it up.
perfect1oNN 4 months ago
You horde too much shit.
blade004 4 months ago
@blade004
lol You are probably right about that. It's not just me though, it's my wife too.
sonnygll 4 months ago
@DominoRolld
So by this logic.
So if a teacher decides to have sex with children in his private life, he clearly should teach children in a school. Your private life has everything to do with your public life. You cannot go out and be a KKK member and then go teach multiracial students.
HeronNobody 4 months ago
@DominoRolld
Hate speech is not free speech.
You cannot scream fire in a crowded building. Same thing applies here. No stop being a complete idiot and think for a change.
HeronNobody 4 months ago
@DominoRolld If you use a term continually... it's describing your own psyche.
faro0485 4 months ago
Your scheme: (insert name here) uses (insert fallacy here) against (insert name here), that is (insert adjective here), etc...
" I'm a skeptic and a rationalist above all else."
U sure are...
LimFuji 4 months ago
@ 0:56 "....er sompin'" if you are not sure if it was a spark or not....that set alight the gasoline....then shut the fuck up
penvsword 4 months ago
@DominoRolld LOL
philateliceun 4 months ago
thunderf00ts Atheist followers are nothing but bullies & trolls i'm shamed to even say i was once an atheist
UKBOXlNGFAN 4 months ago
@UKBOXlNGFAN
Now you are generalizing atheists the same way TF generalizes Muslims. We are not all the same.
sonnygll 4 months ago
@sonnygll sorry i was only generalising thunderfoots followers not all Atheists
UKBOXlNGFAN 4 months ago
@UKBOXlNGFAN-sorry i was only generalising thunderfoots followers not all Atheists?
What constitutes a TF follower? Someone who agrees with everything he says (I haven't seen any of those), someone who agrees with some of what he says, or someone who is simply subscribed to him?
TheNakedAtheist 4 months ago
@TheNakedAtheist
I doubt he was referring to you.
If I go into a TF video and give ANY criticism, I am branded a troll, and all my arguments are dismissed out of hand, same thing with Pat Condell. Not that there aren't a few reasonable people in there though. Not so much with other atheist channels though. You can go into an Amazingatheist video and say "Shut up TJ you fat fuck", and nobody will say shit.
sonnygll 4 months ago
@sonnygll
For some reason I was never notified about this comment. I have to say I disagree to an extent. I've made comments critical of TF, and never been branded as a troll. I think it depends on how it's worded. In fact I've found myself more likely to be branded a troll for making a critical comment on a Coughlan, or a BionicDance video to name a couple off the top of my head. In fact BD, and Coughlan do the labeling themselves actively encouraging their fans to follow suit.
TheNakedAtheist 4 months ago
@TheNakedAtheist
I have never noticed anything like that, with the exception of BD herself getting rather touchy sometimes.
I certainly do disagree with just labeling someone a troll as a sort of ad hominem to evade criticism.
However I have noticed people calling people who disagree in a rude way trolls lately, when traditionally a troll was just someone trying to get a rise out of everyone.
sonnygll 4 months ago
@TheNakedAtheist you ve'nt seen any don't means there isn't any......Most of TF followers are bullies & trolls if you don't agree with them than all they are preaching goes out of the windows e.g free speech etc....
UKBOXlNGFAN 4 months ago
@UKBOXlNGFAN exactly. Its such a shame cause it makes it seem as if a freethinking society can not exist or at least not as a large community. They say they'r against religion but the truth is they just hate Islam. Last week one of the top rated comments on TF's DF doc droppin vid was a theist, he was only top rated because he bashed islam, he even put god bless at the end of his comment. If you don't agree with them you are a muslim, muslim defender, a poe atheist or even blocked. Its pathetic.
philateliceun 4 months ago
@philateliceun
I hadn't considered the implications of the TF phenomenon. However I think you have a point there. It may be that most people do not have the intelligence and empathy required to have a truly rational, peaceful society. So we may get rid of religion and all the things that go with it, including superstition and divisiveness, but still end up with in group/out group hostility based on other criteria for group identity.
sonnygll 4 months ago
@sonnygll-It may be that most people do not have the intelligence and empathy required to have a truly rational, peaceful society.
I think that may well be the case. Getting rid of religion will hardly solve the problem, but I think it would certainly improve things.
TheNakedAtheist 4 months ago
@TheNakedAtheist
I agree wholeheartedly.
sonnygll 4 months ago
@DominoRolld Youtube videos with 100K+ views are NOT private. What you share in the public is your responsibility, if you upload possibly incriminating information on a public forum like a blog or youtube channel then that is your own fault. If you don;t agree with the universities policies don't go to that university.
philateliceun 4 months ago
@DominoRolld So? Why would he get fired? They don't fire people for no reason now do they? What if you believe that what that person does is against the rules of that university ? Don't you have the obligation to spread that public information to that university? Wouldn't it actually be moral to do that? I mean if it isn't against the rules then it doesn't matter, if it is against the rules you have acted accordingly.
philateliceun 4 months ago
@DominoRolld
Good observation about the word try. I don't think I ever even noticed that in the statement. Some have argued that DF death threat is hollow because TF could never awaken the sleeping giant, but he certainly could try to awaken the sleeping giant. I've heard people quite often say "we should nuke the whole middle east", I guess by Dawah's standard "as mandated in the Qur'an" those people should die.
TheNakedAtheist 4 months ago
@TheNakedAtheist
No, you idiot. I stated very clearly "That IS hostile...". Meaning if he were to ever actually provoke one.
*facepalm*
DawahFilms 4 months ago
@DawahFilms
That makes absolutely no sense. Any "sleeping giant" that someone would try to awaken against Islam would by default be hostile. Do you even know what the word hostile means? The very act of trying to awake the sleeping giant is a hostile one. I hope that face-palm was directed at a mirror. lol
TheNakedAtheist 4 months ago
agreed TF produces propagandist vids ,but he does have the right to do so without having his personal life effected . on a pragmatic level the anonimity of the internet does allow people to say what they really think ,this allows a vibrancy in the exchange of ideas ,would be a shame if that was lost due to doc dropping .
sausage4mash 4 months ago
Oh my god the amount of religion hating dick fuckers in this place is fucking amazing! Your all a bunch of racist motherfucking dick riders who need to stop choking on thunderfoots retarded DICK! Im not a Dawahfilms supporter so dont even bother going there! You people dont give a shit about if the argument is valid, all you give a shit about is carrying on this crappy crusade against religion like a bunch of uneducated dicks!
Shamzzyy 4 months ago
@DominoRolld
Bigotry confirmed. You also apparently haven't the foggiest fucking idea about logically sound arguments. Generalizations like guilt by association are logical fallacies.
Also please explain how a statement of self defense is lunacy.
If that's the best you have please go get an education before commenting further.
sonnygll 4 months ago
@sonnygll
How is it self defense for DF, and his allies to kill TF for what the sleeping giant might do?
Here's an analogy of how I see it. TF said if you walk on lawn my uncle Joe will likely kill you, and you're entire family, and Dawah's response. If Joe does that I'll kill you. So he personally threatened to kill TF for something someone else might do if pushed. I don't understand how anyone could see it otherwise.
TheNakedAtheist 4 months ago
Continued...
In fact knowing that TF claims to be a pacifist I would amend it to call Joe his crazy uncle Joe. The sleeping giant being awoken is the last thing he would want to see happen because we'd all suffer.
TheNakedAtheist 4 months ago
@TheNakedAtheist "TF claims to be a pacifist"
All war-mongers believe in peace above all else. It's just that they believe there is no peace until they have conquered the world.
KevinSolway 4 months ago
@TheNakedAtheist " . . . what the sleeping giant might do?"
It's assumed that the sleeping giant will commit genocide or suchlike through stomping on innocent people. That's by definition. We don't wait till the sleeping giant actually commits genocide before we decide it's done anything wrong.
KevinSolway 4 months ago
@KevinSolway
I should have been clearer for dim-bulbs. He simply threatens TF for TRYING to awaken the sleeping giant. So while what they will do is a given it is contingent on that success in awakening them. He might, or might not awaken them if he tried.
TheNakedAtheist 4 months ago
@TheNakedAtheist "He simply threatens TF for TRYING"
Let's say that someone has a gun and tries to shoot your family. They may not succeed to shoot your family because the gun may jam. Hopefully you will have attempted to intervene before that happens.
KevinSolway 4 months ago
@KevinSolway
Now you're just being ridiculous. At worst in that analogy TF would be trying to convince someone to pick up the gun, and even if he succeeded the person who used the gun would be the one responsible. For entertainment value let's grant your argument. By that standard anyone who says "let's nuke the bastards" should be killed, or do you have to have a certain number of you-tube subs to earn the death penalty? lol
TheNakedAtheist 4 months ago
@TheNakedAtheist "a certain number of you-tube subs"
Obviously the greater your influence, the greater your responsiblity.
KevinSolway 4 months ago
@TheNakedAtheist
"Trying" to nuke someone is not saying "Lets nuke the bastards".
Idiot.
DawahFilms 4 months ago
Comment removed
TheNakedAtheist 4 months ago
@DawahFilms
Your words don't threaten to kill TF for "trying to nuke someone" You threaten him if he tries to convince someone to nuke you. In other words if he tries to awaken the sleeping giant, it's not conditional on him awakening the sleeping giant. Saying "Lets nuke the bastards" is precisely that, it's suggesting the sleeping giant be awoken. You have a real problem with English comprehension. Perhaps that's what started all this in the first place.
TheNakedAtheist 4 months ago
Continued...
And did you look up the word hostile, which you clearly don't know the meaning of. I'll make it easy for you, it's the opposite of friendly.
TheNakedAtheist 4 months ago
@TheNakedAtheist
Hostile can imply a lot of things depending on what is being inferred. I was responding to MILITARY RHETORIC. You know what they call the enemy in the military? HOSTILES.
Idiot X 2
DawahFilms 4 months ago
@DawahFilms
Exactly, or in other words unfriendlies. The fact that someone is unfriendly doesn't imply that they are actively engaged in hostilities. So in other words you're threatening to kill people for trying to convince people to be unfriendly. lol
TheNakedAtheist 4 months ago
@TheNakedAtheist
No, I don't. "That IS HOSTILE" indicates an active verb. Not "That might be" or "That would be". There is no future tense.
Once again, you're an idiot.
DawahFilms 4 months ago
@DawahFilms
So you finally looked up the word, and you still got it wrong. "That engages in hostilities" would be a sleeping giant that is more than just awoken. The "sleeping giant" was awoken, and was hostile towards Japan when the attack on pearl harbor took place, prior to any active hostilities. You also got the instigator wrong. It wouldn't be TF that would awaken the sleeping giant it would be Islamic extremists.
TheNakedAtheist 4 months ago
@TheNakedAtheist
DF thought it was a threat, maybe that was a poor interpretation, but that is still what he thought when he made his statement.
So he is just saying that if thunderf00t comes after him, that's what he is going to do.
You can't use your understanding of something to dictate what he means by it.
sonnygll 4 months ago
@sonnygll
And you evidence for the assertion that that is what he thought is? What you mean is that is what DF claims to have thought. And no, that is what he said he would do if TF simply tried to get people to come after him.
TheNakedAtheist 4 months ago
@TheNakedAtheist
So we should take TF at his word, but not DF? That seems biased. I take them both at their word on this. There is no reason not to, and less to be inconsistent about it.
sonnygll 4 months ago
@sonnygll
Could you point out where I claimed knowledge as to what TF thought. I'm not saying I didn't, but I'd like to see the context so I can retract it if necessary, because I can't possibly know what people are thinking.
TheNakedAtheist 4 months ago
@TheNakedAtheist
Well you said that what thunderf00t said wasn't a threat. But my point was that you accept that because you agree with it, as do I. However you are not willing to accept DF clarification of his statement when people interpreted that as a threat. Same thing with questioning how each interprets the other. You are willing to believe one and not the other. I don't see why we should question what they said when we can't know anything about it.
sonnygll 4 months ago
@sonnygll-Well you said that what thunderf00t said wasn't a threat.
I base that on what he said, not what he claims to have meant, or what he claims to have been thinking when he said it.
TheNakedAtheist 4 months ago
@TheNakedAtheist
Oh I see. Yea that's the way I do it to, I assume that he didn't mean it as a threat and DF took it that way, just because that's what they claim.
sonnygll 4 months ago
@DominoRolld
Were you trying to reply to someone? I didn't say anything about genocide.
Your comment makes me think that you didn't watch the video. The bit about Getting fired for being politically incorrect makes me think you're probably a bigot too. Just a guess, but that what your comment implies.
sonnygll 4 months ago
"fee fi foe fum... I smell the inevitability of my impending doom. *sniff, sniff* Smells like my carbon taxes being exposed" - Giant
faro0485 4 months ago
This is the fist video I've seen by you ever. I really like how you articulated what you were saying and how you weren't really taking sides.. just seemed like common sense and logic.
turnxitxaround 4 months ago