I find it suspicious that you can still shout loudly while you're being "choked". You are also a huge asshole and you give atheists a bad name by being a self-righteous, offensive prick. None of that excuses assault if it happened, but you're still a jerk. HTH.
Its funny how Muslims make fun of Jesus and kill Christians in the name of their God, but yet people are suppose to be tolerant to these murderers and their barbaric laws. May God help them.
@DivineNewsNetwork my friend, no person can become a muslim, if he does not believe and respect prophet Jesus. this is one of the requirements of being a muslim, i.e. to believe in all prophets and the message they brought. you clearly have no clue about islam and its basics. all muslims respect and follow jesus.
Only a REAL FOOL would claim there is no God! Man creates awesome skyscrapers, fake hearts, tunnels, vehicles etc.. If we are very imperfect then what more can God create THE UNIVERSE! You must accept Jesus Christ as your Savior to receive eternal rest in heaven! Simple! John 3:16 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him! Repent & accept Jesus Christ! Jesus Christ or HELL?!? Visit cbn. com
This video is a poorly executed attempt by a small group of people as part of their war on all religions by manipulating public opinion. A muslim immigrant took the bait, the weak and gullable reacted with the muslims vs America rhetoric as expected. Those of us who are a little smarter quickly figured it out that this video is more about etchics and decency vs the exploitation of the law to serv a personal agenda....
Members of the Muslim jihadist group Boko Haram are vowing to “eradicate Christianity” in Nigeria.
Reports coming out of Nigeria over the past several days show that the group whose name means “Western education is evil” is launching a new terror campaign aimed at killing Christians and Jews in northern Nigeria.
Nah - Muslims aren't violent....They are just big ol teddy bears...misunderstood and oppressed teddy bears....Poooor Moooslims!
How do you yell for help while being chocked? How do you continue to film and NOT drop your camera. This whole about being chocked is hard for me to believe. It appears as if he was pushed and not chocked.
They don't come more rabidly atheist than me, but I have to say that you were clearly being a bit of a dick and that doesn't sound like an assault to me.
This isn't helpful to getting atheists respected is it?
The bottom line: here in the USA we have the right to satirize any public figure. Muhammad doesn't get any special protection. If a muslim physically attacks someone for making fun of Muhammad, the muslim is the only one committing a crime. No excuses. Judge Martin should be impeached and disbarred.
Right - another asshole demanding "respect" and then goes on to say...."and ur all jew pigs." rRight after he said, "NO U CAN ,U CANOT GO ATTACKIN OTHER PPLS FAITH LIEK THAT."
I don't demand anyone respect me! Where have you seen me say that at all? You know, you don't have to lie to make a point, and I keep catching you in them...lies, made up shit, fabrications...is that all you can do? I didn't even "demand" you respect me when commenting on my own vids...did I? DID I? - Lying sack of crap!
This is the diffrence between religious people and atheists.
Atheists tend to most of the time mock something they dislike it shows no respect because atheism has no real morals. Yes america has freedom of speech to mock abd insualt others diffrent from you. What a great moral nation :)
From your own youtube page (channel) "Zionism is the CANCER of the whole world", "Can you believe that Christians believe that God was a baby? walking around in diapers?". "EXPOSE CHRISTINITY THE ANTI-CHRIST ST.PAUL WHO TURNED CHRISTIANS INTO PAGANS MAKING THEM WORSHIP THE CREATION INSTEAD OF THE CREATOR ALLAH" So, apparently it is OK for you to mock, denigrate and disrespect the religions and beliefs of others, and you say YOU are more moral?
In fact, you are no better than the Muslim douchebag who was telling me how much more "moral" he is because Islam prohibits "fornication" and then later when I REALLY got under his skin, bragged about how "I was just pissed off, because he fucks lots of "white women". (as if I care who he fucks - I don't) What I do care about and will relentlessly point out is Islamic supremacy, Islamic hypocrisy, and the inability of Muslims to tolerate criticism of their religion and prophet!
Fine you can say and believe that shit all you want. Just don't expect me to "show respect" for you or your "culture" in response....I'm as free to be as big a douchebag as you....remember that.
And - "attacking" the word of "God" is no different to me than "challenging" the words of Tinkerbell, Santa Claus or even the Lucky Charms Leprechaun... I call "Bullshit" to ANYONE who proclaims anything to be the "word of God". Illiterate, medieval, ignorant idiot.
Atheists are antagonists and Muslims are violent a bad mix! ...ok, seriously I think this was in bad taste from the Atheist but surely not illegal. I do respect free speech, even if I dont think this was a good thing to do. The Muslim should have been charged with assault. Remember this Atheists the Constitution doesnt protect you from being offended or getting your feelings hurt either. Next time a cross or prayer offends you remember the right of free speech and religious expression.
As an Atheist, I agree with your assessment. I also agree there is no such thing as a "right to not be offended". Crosses and prayer do not bother me. It's crosses and prayer in SECULAR institutions. (Like Government meetings, government property, municipal functions, etc...) which should be devoid of ANY religious displays.
Are you sure? Of these 7 most significant founding fathers, only John Jay can be called an "Orthodox Christian": John Adams,Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, Thomas Jefferson. James Madison, George Washington. In fact, Jefferson himself stated that he did not believe in "the holy trinity" or the "Virgin birth of Jesus". (Look up the Jefferson Bible)
"Jesus did not mean to impose Himself on mankind as the Son of God, physically speaking, I have been convinced by the writings of men more learned than myself in the lore." -- Thomas Jefferson's letter to William Short, August 4, 1820
Historian Barry Schwartz writes: "George Washington's practice of Christianity was limited and superficial because he was not himself a Christian... He repeatedly declined the church's sacraments. Never did he take communion, and when his wife, Martha, did, he waited for her outside the sanctuary... Even on his deathbed, Washington asked for no ritual, uttered no prayer to Christ, and expressed no wish to be attended by His representative." [New York Press, 1987, pp. 174-175]
". . . Some books against Deism fell into my hands. . . It happened that they wrought an effect on my quite contrary to what was intended by them; for the arguments of the Deists, which were quoted to be refuted, appeared to me much stronger than the refutations; in short, I soon became a thorough Deist."
"What is it the New Testament teaches us? To believe that the Almighty committed debauchery with a woman engaged to be married; and the belief of this debauchery is called faith." - Thomas Paine
If the you were being choked then you would not have been able to speak. Stop being such a pussy and get over it. You did something offensive and someone stopped you. WIMP!
Judges must make rulings based upon the law and not their personal opinions. Under the law, this was assault and battery and the Muslim was rightfully charged. The renegade judge was promoting an agenda. He needs to be kicked off the bench, and disbarred if he's also an attorney.
Personally I wouldn't have done it out of respect for someone's belief.And yet he's in America not Saudi Arabia he has the right to say whatever he wants.The Muslim guy was wrong period I'm sorry he was offended but he doesn't have the right putting his hands on anyone.
you guys are a bunch of idiots! why would you mock them by dressing up as Mohammed? you should use your brain and talk/debate on their views. make them think! you wont get to anyone by simply making them angry. In my opinion, you guys are the fools here and therefor make atheist look bad.
"you guys are a bunch of idiots! why would you mock them by dressing up as Mohammed? you should use your brain and talk/debate on their views. make them think! you wont get to anyone by simply making them angry. In my opinion, you guys are the fools here and therefor make atheist look bad."
Idiot. The time for discussion has passed, it is time for exposure. These people do not respect our culture, did you watch the video?
@driftmyfc it's an exercise of freedom to show that their beliefs do not apply to non-muslims. they have to accept the rights of freedom of speech that also applies to them if they want to make fun of jesus or any other fantasy figure.
Satire is important to free speech and a form of debate in itself. It's meant to be critical theatrically and it forces someone to either rethink or defend their beliefs. His costume can be counted as such. Also, remember that he was in a Halloween parade with other zombies, ghouls, and even a "Zombie Pope" and meant as a joke. Regardless if you think it's funny or not resorting to violence over speech is never acceptable. And besides, it's just a costume.
I think the point that many are making is that Muslims won't tolerate honest debate. And really, why should we debate? I don't want to "change" anyone's faith...I do want to be free to poke fun at other peoples "sacred cows". I should be free to criticize, to poke fun, to satirize...This is AMERICA and those are sacred traditions. ISLAM IS NOT EXEMPT!
The judge was wrong here, your attacker should be fined and jailed. But dude YOU share responsibility for this fight too. What happened to civil society? You don't purposely offend people so egregiously then call the cops when you get into a fight. That's a bitch move. What if you went as "Zombie Marine Baby-Killer" or "Jobless Nigger Zombie from Plantation Land" and got choked? People wouldn't bat an eyelash if you were knocked out.
"What happened to civil society?" Is what you asked. In a civil society we don't harm someone if they piss us off. Even if they wear a very offensive costume, as you mentioned, and everyone would like to. Cuss him the hell out but keep your hands to yourself. Mr. Perce bearing any responsibility because someone else can't control themself doesn't hold water.
Unpopular speech may fire us up but as adults our only responsibly to each other is to use words not violence.
@loszhor I've seen this argument way too many times on this page. No one is saying that violence is ok, cause it's not. BUT, the guys that are dressed up are opening the door to pissing people off. That is their fault. There are better ways to make a point.
No one gets to decide for others what's the acceptable way to make a point. This guy's costume is satire on his view of religion and remember there was also a "Zombie Pope" so he and his friends weren't just speaking at one and yet everyone but that one guy could take it. Satire can piss you off but there is no moral justification for the "they were asking for it" argument. This would mean violence is justified against certain speech under certain circumstances.
@loszhor "No one gets to decide for others what's the acceptable way to make a point. " Yes they do. Violence, for example, is an inappropriate way to make a point, is it not? Shouldn't democracy say so? And please understand that there is a difference between asking for it, and pushing the limits. The did not directly ask for it, but they are trying to be inciteful.
Apples and oranges. Violence is physical and harms others but speech is verbal and the only thing speech can hurt are feelings. Remember, we are talking about points made through speech."Shouldn't democracy say so?" Should a group of other people decide what speech is ok or not? NEVER. Perjury, slander, threats can harm but wearing a costume can't.
And what fine line do you draw between asking for it and and pushing the limits? Incitefulness is no excuse for violence.
@loszhor That's not apples and oranges. If you make the point that "No one gets to decide for others what's the acceptable way to make a point", then you did not make the distinction between violence and speech.
"Should a group of other people decide what speech is ok or not? NEVER. " How would you have it then? Every man for himself? At some point, there is groups deciding what is ok to say, and what isn't. Should a group of other people decide what speech is ok or not? NEVER.
Late reply, it got marked as spam and it didn't go to my inbox. OPINIONS ARE NOT SPAM GUYS!
The distinction is clear, violence is physical and speech is words. Acts of violence with weapons to make a point is far different from a satirical act with words or images.
When you said "Every man for himself?" I had to think but is that not what freedom of speech is? Everyone man with his own opinion. Opinions are our own and no one has the power on how to say or feel.
@loszhor A costume can't harm? You're arguing before even thinking about counter examples. Spend 3 seconds thinking about abortion, and I'm sure you could come up with an offensive example.
Why is you tube so bad at logic? I lose my cool so quickly with people who seem like they just want to argue, and when they're not good at it. My point is that the OP people are mocking concepts/ideas that people hold dear. You are probably going to piss some people off. Even though it's wrong, they
@Theocrooks are kind of asking for it. If you walk through a shitty neighborhood at night, you are kinda asking for trouble. Although the trouble that comes is not appropriate, if the people could have walked another way, then they are kind of asking for it.
Yes but if a guy gets mugged walking through a lousy neighborhood, are the cops gonna blame the victim? If the perps get caught will the jury hear that the victim "incited" the mugging? Time to grow up Theo, time to join the world of enlightened thinkers.
You are confusing offense with physical harm. A costume certainly will NOT harm you. Even an abortion rally costume that can certainly bring offense will not bring you bodily harm by looking at it or reading a sign the wearer might be holding.
Getting pissed off is part of life even about things we hold dear to our hearts. We all just suck it up and get on with our lives. The whole "asking for it" thing is just wiggle room that's it's ok under certain circumstances.
@loszhor you are confusing yourself now, sir. You made the distinction between costumes and speech, neither of which are physical harm.
Read the fucking comments. I, in no way ever, even HINTED that there is fucking wiggle room. Are you trolling? I specifically said violence is wrong. Twice. How you and the other guy I was talking to heard "oh violence is ok under certain circumstances" is only a guess. Are you guys so stuck in your head that you're not really listening? Just arguing?
No, I have always implied that costumes fall within speech. Like I said earlier the costume is satire, theatrical criticism. And that's my point exactly it can't harm you. So we at last agree then?
I know you said that violence was wrong but you keep ending it by making an example with "they are kind of asking for it" to top it off. Indeed, that is wiggle room especially when applied to what happened here. I don't know who the "other guy" is.
@loszhor I get heated sometimes. There is no wiggle room. For the third time. BUT they are putting themselves in harms way. Its like taking a fat kid to the candy store. Are you to blame if he east candy? No. But you certainly were in the realm of danger by putting him there. That's a crap analogy, but I hope you get the point finally. Violence=not ok. But, it was a stupid move on the OP's part.
@Stalicone Cool. I knew you were a derp. I may wonder if you're retarded or something. If I've already said that violence is never they way, like 10 times now, but youre still trying to teach me that, then maybe you're retarded. I can't blame it on reading comprehension cause you seem to grasp that. Maybe just troll. Either way, not worth my time. Good day sir. The actions were not right. If you dont understand that, clear as day now, then I can't help you.
One more time so I can get through the willful density...Yes, you said violence is not ok...fine and you should have ended it there. YOU added the equivocation that somehow he should have "Known" it would happen. And that he "tried" to provoke...and my answer to you AGAIN is SO WHAT???? That shit is IRRELEVANT
And in fact, you use the word "retarded" which is an offensive epithet to those who are mentally disabled. Do you have any shame? Remorse? You are every bit as disrespectful and offensive as the Atheists you have criticized.
That's just blaming the victim logic. It's excuse making for bad behavior. The excuse itself is the wiggle room. The analogy made seems mild but applied to the topic at hand it's got no standing. The guy is walking a parade in a provocative costume and someone in the crowd gets butthurt and attacks him and the excuse is: Well, if he didn't piss him off in the first place it wouldn't have happened.
Looks like we are coming to agree to disagree time. We know where we stand.
@loszhor You are bad at this. Sorry. I see you arguing with everyone and just being stubborn. No one is placing blame, but make up your own story if you like. Good bye.
It's all good Los...I noticed Theo made exactly the same comments to me, i.e., "You are bad at this" That is how he discounts arguments he cannot deal with! I'm so glad to see there are those here who believe in Freedom and our Constitution. It was very lonely for a while....
@loszhor Shit, sorry. This other guy. You actually had a decent amount of logic, respectability, and even vocabulary. It's not everyday I get to hear remonstration.
On another point, I the truth is, most certainly, if the OP's didn't start this, nothing would have happened. But, and I hope you follow, that in now way signifies that its ok for violence. It's not wiggle room. There is nothing that is ok about that. These concepts are not mutually exclusive. (Sorry this was supposed to go to you)
@Theocrooks Shit, sorry. This other guy. You actually had a decent amount of logic, respectability, and even vocabulary. It's not everyday I get to hear remonstration.
On another point, I the truth is, most certainly, if the OP's didn't start this, nothing would have happened. But, and I hope you follow, that in now way signifies that its ok for violence. It's not wiggle room. There is nothing that is ok about that. These concepts are not mutually exclusive.
@loszhor Truth is, if he didn't piss the guy off, this never would have happened. That's the truth. It still doesn't make it excusable. If you dont get that, then sorry.
Mostly because your logic has NO basis in LAW. I'm sorry, but you have accused me of inciting YOU several times now, and that I'm a lousy debater, but the fact is, YOU HAVE NO ANSWER.....I will try one more time because you actually seem on the verge of a "revelation" THE ANSWER TO OFFENSIVE SPEECH IS MORE SPEECH NOT VIOLENCE! Get it yet? Or are we too naive to think grown ups should exhibit some self control?
@Stalicone You are a lousy debater. You don't listen to things that are quite clearly stated. You also argue against things that I never said. It's like I'm arguing with a robot. That makes me think troll. GGPO.
Ive given up on Theo...Hes tried to make this point several times and doesn't get the fact that - in THIS country VIOLENCE IS A CRIME! WORDS ARE NOT! He intractibly tries to blame the victim as if a rape victim is responsible for inciting her attacker because she was pretty or wore skimpy clothes or even was a slut. THERE IS NO EXCUSE ON THE PART OF THE ATTACKER!
@Stalicone This is the idiot I was talking about earlier. He can't seem to get the point that I have already said violence is not ok. I think you summed it up well earlier when you wrote, "I do get your point that these Atheists were indelicate and offensive and there is additional truth to your observation that they should have KNOWN what would happen. But isn't that the sad part?"
You're trying your bullshit "blame the victim" routine with another lover of civil rights and freedom? When are you going to learn that you will never change the minds of people who love freedom and the right to think and speak freely....even if it pisses people off. No one seems to give a shit about "pissing people off" until its the MUSLIMS who are "pissed off". TOUGH SHIT! Get used to it!
@Stalicone If you can read, see that I never once said that they deserved it. I'm not sure if you can read though, because I already said that 5 times. I forgot you are a troll that just wants to argue. I dont even think you know that you are being a troll though.
Also, if you've learned one thing so far, it could be "dont generalize".
"No one seems to give a shit about "pissing people off" until its the MUSLIMS who are "pissed off"" is wrong. Just plain wrong. Do I need to explain why?
@Stalicone My Gosh. I just got your point. And you have fully misunderstood me. I never, not once, said that the right to free speech should be taken away. I dont think it should. I do think that people should be respectful human being though, and not be dicks. The guys in the video were being dicks and had to have wondered if there would be some sort of recompense for their actions. Does that make sense? BTW, it would be great if you read better. I understand championing a cause,
No, Theo - I haven't misunderstood you. I'm simply trying to show that offensive speech is NEVER a reason for violence. I have been subjected to offensive speech and remonstrations for my entire life, yet I have never physically assaulted anyone for it.
I do get your point that these Atheists were indelicate and offensive and there is additional truth to your observation that they should have KNOWN what would happen. But isn't that the sad part? - Contd
indelicate? Thats a severe understatement. Freedom of Speech is not the same as dressing up as a religious figure to mock an entire culture. There was nothing in their attempt to even convey a message. All I saw was two zombies dressed like religious figures and their sign saying that god=awful. If you hide behind freedom of speech, how would you feel if I screwed your wife or girlfriend and went around carrying a sign about it. What they did was an insult not satire.
If you screwed my wife (first I would be AMAZED that you would even WANT to - Hahahaha) and then carried a sign about it (I honestly don't think you would want ANYONE to know! Hahahaha) No, I wouldn't be offended enough to attack you. And in this country, Free Speech is not predicated on a subjective opinion like whether it was satire or an insult...BOTH are protected.
@Stalicone I think you missed the point. Our founding fathers came up with freedom of speech to allow people to speak out without fear of being imprisoned. This isnt the same situation, we're talking back then that people being arrested for disagreeing with the government. Fast forward to today, I think if our founding fathers saw this, they would have changed freedom of speech because the people in the video are spreading hate messages. Its one thing to disagree, its another to flat out offend.
Unfortunately, your historical assessment, may seem logical and make you "feel good" it is simply not accurate. Political and social discourse has a long tradition of irreverence and denigration (refer to the Adams/Jackson election of 1828 for examples). The founders well understood that Free Speech is not only confined to political discourse but ANY subject whether philosophical, religious, political etc...
@Stalicone I think you are trying to broadly generalize free speech to make anything acceptable. If you threaten someone with words, even if no physical action is taken, you still can be held accountable and thrown in jail, which goes against your argument. You can also be thrown in jail speaking certain phrases to minors.
Again you are incorrect. Look more deeply into this thread for my analysis on "Fighting words", Threats, False Alarms, etc.... I never said "Anything goes" HOWEVER, When it comes to criticizing a RELIGION, there is no PERSONAL attack, threat or false alarm....
@Stalicone It is if you do not understand the religion and culture. Instigating a fight is just as bad as starting it. Its one thing to not believe in God but to literally insult others is an abuse of free speech. While I never said they should be thrown in jail, its people like that who intentionally instigate people who cause problems. They werent conveying anything meaningful except their disrespect for others, so why should anyone respect them?
You asked "so why should anyone respect them?" The answer is....They shouldn't! They are as free to use words as anyone else. WHAT THEY ARE NOT FREE TO DO IS ANSWER WORDS WITH VIOLENCE. Have you looked at how much filth is coming from the hypocritical assholes who demand respect for their "culture" and then use epithets like "Jew Pigs" and "Christian Antichrist"? Don't excoriate me for saying the answer to offensive speech is MORE speech.
Apparently, among the loudest Muslims here, "respect" is a one way street....So I say again, if this is the hypocrisy you live by, FUCK YOU AND YOUR PROPHET!
@Stalicone Damn. You're angry bro. Sorry if you had to go through something crappy. I just hope you're not some closed minded bigot. I used to wonder if you're a troll, now I just think you need some thinking time. You seem angry.
In fact, outrageous speech has a very long tradition going back to Greek and Roman philosophers, Oxford, Cambridge, and Parliament. The founders didn't "come up with" freedom of speech, they merely acknowledged it as a "natural right", that is, one that CANNOT be "taken away" by Government. Freedom of speech is not in any sense of the word to be confined to political discourse, a position long supported by SCOTUS and founders like Jefferson and Franklin.
"Without Freedom of Thought, there can be no such thing as Wisdom; and no such thing as public Liberty, without Freedom of Speech." - Franklin
"Better a thousandfold abuse of free speech than denial of free speech."
Charles Bradlaugh
"By placing discretion in the hands of an official to grant or deny a license, such a statute creates a threat of censorship that by its very existence chills free speech."
"Everybody favours free speech in the slack moments when no axes are being ground."
Heywood Broun
"The Framers of the Constitution knew that free speech is the friend of change and revolution. But they also knew that it is always the deadliest enemy of tyranny."
Hugo Black
"Without free speech no search for truth is possible... no discovery of truth is useful."
@Stalicone The irony of what you just said proves my point. The people you quoted were speaking in the same light as what I said. No where in any of those quotes does it state that free speech be used to belittle, berate, or condemn someones beliefs because it differs from their own. Speaking out against something you disagree with does not mean you should be offensive. Did MLK insult people with his speech? No.
No, MLK didn't but that was HIS choice and HIS style. Abbie Hoffman certainly DID. As did Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton DID (hence the famous duel) JQ Adams and A. Jackson most certainly DID...which proves my point....IT IS THE SPEAKERS CHOICE!
And I dont see how I have proved your point. In fact, the opposite is true. Who has limited the speech of THESE offensive speakers? Jeremiah Wright, Louis Farrakhan, Elijah Mohammed, Jesse Jackson, Rush Limbaugh, Don Imus, Andrew Dice Clay, Anderson Cooper, WBC, KKK, Neo-Nazis...etc...etc...etc...You simply aren't getting it. The limiting factor to offensive speech is public revulsion, NOT "criminalizing" speech. The answer to offensive speech - is MORE speech.
@Stalicone Thats funny, you discounted some forms of speech, like threats and false alarms, but those are forms of speech. Removing forms of speech that hurt your arguments isnt a way to win a debate. Second, the people you keep listing are not people parading in public and in a person's face. I dont like Rush Limbaugh? I dont have to tune to his station. Just because hate speech is tolerated, doesnt make it right and in most cases criminal like threats of bodily harm.
I didn't "discount" them, The Supreme Court of the United States did. SCOTUS has long held precedents that govern Speech. Like threats of Bodily harm, communicating false alarms, Fighting words (which have to be of a PERSONAL nature, sorry making fun of a dead prophet doesn't qualify.)
@Stalicone Hey, you were the one bringing up quotes about how everything is covered by freedom of speech, now you want to limit it and hiding behind the supreme court? If freedom of speech can be limited, then its subjected to different interpretations. Its a dangerous path when you take one of the crux is that all speech is free. My point was never about limiting freedom of speech, it was about how inconsiderate these people were and how their actions provoked the incident.
Wow - total misunderstanding here, so I will patiently try to help you understand. I never proposed "Anarchy", which is what you are suggesting. The limitations on speech in the USA are fairly clear (murky in some areas, true - like the newly adopted Hate crimes statutes which criminalizes speech when coupled with criminal ACTS.) What I object to is your assertion that their SPEECH (not actions my friend) "provoked" the incident. That is fallacious.
Now, I can allow for your misconception that I was somehow advocating "There are no limits" to speech, and I'm sorry, that simply is not true. The problem here is that you have been arguing with a Law Student who has studied extensively on civil rights, and my mistake was in assuming that you have the requisite understanding of concepts like "Hate Speech", "Threats", "Fighting words" etc....all are distinct legal concepts and NOT of my own invention.
Again, I urge you to read the wiki on free speech in the US. It is a great primer which will only serve to help you and I to achieve a "meeting of the minds", if that is of interest to you.
@Stalicone I suggest you go read it the wikipedia page and read up on the limitations. I think you just have not grasps the concept that there are limitations. My point was all the quotes you provided was about not limiting free speech. The limits are there to protect people, which is why what they did was not only offensive but puts them into a bad position. The judge was unprofessional, no question there but where I'm coming from is cause and effect and the effect was an angry muslim.
Well certainly the cause and effect was an angry Muslim - on that we agree. Speech is often designed to elicit anger....Otherwise it wouldn't need to be protected. What is NOT allowed is allowing your anger to manifest itself in physical violence....Period! End of story.
@mjblack05 Do yourself a favor and research the wiki on "Freedom of Speech" It will be a great place for you to start....Free speech does not mean Anarchy. But walking around in a costume depicting Mohammed is CLEARLY PROTECTED SPEECH
@Stalicone Ok, lets go look at wikipedia...hmm this excerpt does good. " subject to limitations, as with libel, slander, obscenity and incitement to commit a crime." I know what freedom of speech is, and mostly what the people in the video did was morally obscene. Please do not try to insult me again. Knowingly walking around with the sign that says you are mohammed is also incitement.
NOT according to the law. Incitement has to consist of a speaker exhorting people to commit a crime. Making fun of a prophet DOES NOT QUALIFY LEGALLY!
@Stalicone Making fun of a prophet, knowing full well that the people who revere said figure will be incited to commit crimes? Are you really that naive? I think over the last decade that when a foreign cartoonist made fun of the prophet in a cartoon and he was murdered shortly after that it would be common knowledge that making fun of said person would incite a culture to do illegal activities. So yes they incited it. Now I'm done.
You may be of the opinion that they "incited" it, but I'm sorry, legally, no "incitement" occurred. Try to argue FACTS and LAW and not your personal opinion. And no, NO INCITEMENT took place - next question?.
You cannot "libel" a dead guy (printed words) You cannot "slander" a dead guy (spoken words) Obscenity is one of the most difficult cases to bring (see US v Larry Flynt) and incitement requires (exhortation to commit a crime) NONE of these can be applied to walking around dressed as Mohammed.
And actually yes - many of them DO indeed parade in public espousing offensive ideas....That is not a legal theory at all, that somehow speech uttered via airwaves has a different "standard" than speech uttered in a "public forum". In fact, because the "airwaves" are considered the "property of the people" in the USA, that can be construed as public a forum as any.
@Stalicone I'm done arguing cause now you're trying to take freedom of speech and talk about limitation on TV and airwaves, which most follow decency guidelines. The further censorship of these programs are not enforced by the federal government. Comedy Central, a cable channel does not need to censor anything because its not open airwaves, yet they still do. Its called common decency, and on that note I'm done with you cause you'll just keep going in circles dodging the truth.
Wow - I tried to help you. YOU are the one who brought in the TV and Radio angle.....as if there is a difference between offensive speech (Constitutionally) on the radio or TV Vs. a public forum....We are not talking about corporate standards. We are talking about the CONSTITUTION
I know you are done arguing because the more you are learning on this subject, the more these concepts are beginning to find root in your mind.... Of that I am glad. I hope, as one of the less intransigent apologists of Muslim violence here - you may actually understand that criticism of ANY "sacred cow" is a long and dearly held American tradition. One that many of us are willing to defend with our lives....(Count me in that group)
"Ignorant free speech often works against the speaker. That is one of several reasons why it must be given rein instead of suppressed.
Anna Quindlen
"Free speech means the right to shout 'theatre' in a crowded fire."
Abbie Hoffman
Free speech is not to be regulated like diseased cattle and impure butter. The audience that hissed yesterday may applaud today, even for the same performance.
@mjblack05 Yo mjblack. This guy is an idiot or a troll (Stalicone). Do not waste your time on him. He will make accusations about things that you didn't say, and will just try and push his points without listening very well. Or he's a jackass troll. I just spent 4 days trying to reason with him and it was pretty useless. Fair warning.
If citing law and precedent is "Trolling", Then my friend you have just admitted that you are completely incapable of arguing with me in a cogent way. So far not ONE of you has been able to refute my analysis of 1st amendment rights - NOT ONE! And why would you try? I have an entire legal library full of opinions and precedent at my disposal. All you have, is what you "think" is right. Theo, in the world of debate, you show up at a gunfight, with a pocketknife.
@Stalicone It's like youre not listening and youre in your own world. Maybe you can't see that. I saw your poorly "composed" arguments with other people. Horrible logic. Maybe yo'ure a narcissist and can't see how faulted you are. I'm not really sure, cause you don't seem to get it no matter how many people tell you. You also don't listen well. You kinda just argue. It's all good. Either you are a good troll, or you really dont get it from lack of intelligence, or you're mental. Peace.
What a lying sack of crap. (and here is why...THAT'S called citing facts) and here they are, other than Hyperbole, Ad-Hominem attacks (like "You don't listen well", You're a troll" etc...) AND your personal opinion, you haven't cited one source, either legal or historic, that supports your crappy assertions. I have provided TONS of both. See, that's HOW you argue successfully...make a point and back it up with FACTS...not what you THINK.
"Damn. You're angry bro. Sorry if you had to go through something crappy."....Perhaps THAT is what you try to pass off as arguing "facts". I don't get it Theo, how is YOUR OPINION that I am "angry" refute my arguments? Answer? It doesn't! All you try to do is portray ME as a nut or a mental case hoping that it somehow discredits my points. It doesn't! It only makes you look WEAK.....
@Stalicone Thank you for keeping a cool head when I did not. It was much easier to cool down that way. I've been dealing with an idiot or a troll on here, who is now messaging you. I might have just got trolled pretty hard. I've already said 10 times that violence is not ok, and he can't seem to understand that. I agree, still, that violence is not the answer. Your summary is good though. "CONT
@Theocrooks wtf. why is this going to you. damnit. you are the idiot troll I was talking about. All you if is shitty ad hominems and a desire to argue. You have terrible logic, make up things that I didn't say, and press points that hadn't been a part of the conversation. If you dont see that, then I'm sorry. You're a troll, or you lack the intelligence to see it. Try and see what I'm saying please, if you're not a troll. Either way, peace out.
And you say it is ME suffering from a lack of intelligence....I still haven't seen you present ONE citable source that supports any refutation of what I have been saying...NOT ONE! And in the process of losing your MacNuggets, you start replying incoherently to...well, who knows who! And I'm the stupid one...I'm the mental one......Hahahahahaha! You are so far out of your depth, you don't even realize it. Your hyperbolic nonsense refutes NOTHING...Not even a good try.
What I am trying to help you wrap your tiny little head around is this concept. Try arguing the issue and stop making ME the "issue". It's most unfortunate that you won't because you know you have NOTHING, your only recourse is to attack ME...i.e., "Stupid", "mental", Troll" etc....All because you know your arguments are weak and legally unsupportable.
@Stalicone CONTINUATION. "This is the idiot I was talking about earlier. He can't seem to get the point that I have already said violence is not ok. I think you summed it up well earlier when you wrote, "I do get your point that these Atheists were indelicate and offensive and there is additional truth to your observation that they should have KNOWN what would happen. But isn't that the sad part?"" I think that is one of my main points. These guys knew better.
No, I got your point that "violence is not ok" but then you offer that the Atheist "Should have known" that would happen. He probably DID. Still, whether he was TRYING to provoke a reaction or whether he was blissfully ignorant of the likelihood...IS IRRELEVANT! THAT is what YOU don't seem to get.
(2) Isn't it sad that the criticism; "Muslims respond to criticism of their religion with violence" is proven to be true time and time again? Ask yourself, When the criticism is leveled that; "your religion is violent, and that its adherents cannot handle criticism without responding violently." And THEN the response is - violence. Doesn't that simply prove the criticism accurate?
@Stalicone hasty genearlization. It's a thing. Look it up. Dude, do you really have nothing better to do than argue on youtube? I see you arguing with everyone.
@Stalicone but when you are so into the cause, then you aren't really understanding the persons meaning, then you will lose a lot of people. (I think this is important for you too see, as there have been a couple times where you are arguing with me with a viewpoint that I never espoused.)
You didn't espouse it, you did suggest that - they should have known that they would get that response. And indeed, upon reflection, I agree! They SHOULD have known that at least ONE Muslim who simply could not handle having his precious little feelings hurt would respond violently. Yup, should have known it. After all, THAT is the main complaint I have with Islam, Not the religion, not the people, not the beliefs....But the absolute prohibition of criticism and satire.
Thats because he's probably choked so many kuffars he's used to it....it's just routine now for another VIOLENT Muslim FANATIC who thinks his precious "Prophet" is above criticism.
@Stalicone Sounds like you're the kind of person this guy is pandering to: people who accept the narrative that Muslims are just inherently violent. When I heard the court case that this guy posted up and read his commentary in the video, it's obvious that he's trying really hard to pander to the "Mozlems are vile-ent" crowd.
With that said, that Muslim guy shouldn't have touched him. But it sounds obvious that the Atheist guy wasn't choking and is being a drama queen.
Indeed - I don't disagree with your assessment of the actual veracity of the court case. My issue is with those who keep asserting that "offending" Islam somehow excuses their violent reaction as "being provoked" THAT is my criticism...."Blame the victim". Whether THIS case actually produced a "victim" IS a matter of debate. However, in light of the DOCUMENTED violent reactions of Muslims in response to ANY perceived "Insult", the criticism is in fact...True.
Ernest Perce is moronic and sophomoric as is his fellow zombie pope. As adults they know better than to dress like this and parade around in order to antagonize people.
Young kids don't need to see an adult acting like an ass.
I find it suspicious that you can still shout loudly while you're being "choked". You are also a huge asshole and you give atheists a bad name by being a self-righteous, offensive prick. None of that excuses assault if it happened, but you're still a jerk. HTH.
libblation 42 minutes ago
Its funny how Muslims make fun of Jesus and kill Christians in the name of their God, but yet people are suppose to be tolerant to these murderers and their barbaric laws. May God help them.
DivineNewsNetwork 1 day ago
@DivineNewsNetwork my friend, no person can become a muslim, if he does not believe and respect prophet Jesus. this is one of the requirements of being a muslim, i.e. to believe in all prophets and the message they brought. you clearly have no clue about islam and its basics. all muslims respect and follow jesus.
sharartie 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Only a REAL FOOL would claim there is no God! Man creates awesome skyscrapers, fake hearts, tunnels, vehicles etc.. If we are very imperfect then what more can God create THE UNIVERSE! You must accept Jesus Christ as your Savior to receive eternal rest in heaven! Simple! John 3:16 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him! Repent & accept Jesus Christ! Jesus Christ or HELL?!? Visit cbn. com
tigersforchrist 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@tigersforchrist
Hocus pocus.....Abracadabra....
Stalicone 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This video is a poorly executed attempt by a small group of people as part of their war on all religions by manipulating public opinion. A muslim immigrant took the bait, the weak and gullable reacted with the muslims vs America rhetoric as expected. Those of us who are a little smarter quickly figured it out that this video is more about etchics and decency vs the exploitation of the law to serv a personal agenda....
MlLKMAN 1 day ago
Comment removed
MlLKMAN 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hmmmmmm.., i wonder why???
bwoiiiii 1 day ago
Hmmmmmmm... I wonder why?
bwoiiiii 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Members of the Muslim jihadist group Boko Haram are vowing to “eradicate Christianity” in Nigeria.
Reports coming out of Nigeria over the past several days show that the group whose name means “Western education is evil” is launching a new terror campaign aimed at killing Christians and Jews in northern Nigeria.
Nah - Muslims aren't violent....They are just big ol teddy bears...misunderstood and oppressed teddy bears....Poooor Moooslims!
Stalicone 2 days ago
Fuck muhammed with his perverted ass. Fuck all the muslims that worship him as well!!!!
phatslapper 2 days ago
How do you yell for help while being chocked? How do you continue to film and NOT drop your camera. This whole about being chocked is hard for me to believe. It appears as if he was pushed and not chocked.
SalafeeSpot 2 days ago
They don't come more rabidly atheist than me, but I have to say that you were clearly being a bit of a dick and that doesn't sound like an assault to me.
This isn't helpful to getting atheists respected is it?
TheIanErc 2 days ago
the quaran prescribes punishment for them!!
ur gonna smell paradise, if u keep this up!!
u wonder why we blow up ur twin towers, when u do stuff like this???
AnonymousElektron 3 days ago
The bottom line: here in the USA we have the right to satirize any public figure. Muhammad doesn't get any special protection. If a muslim physically attacks someone for making fun of Muhammad, the muslim is the only one committing a crime. No excuses. Judge Martin should be impeached and disbarred.
nuderobot 3 days ago
@nuderobot NO U CAN ,U CANOT GO ATTACKIN OTHER PPLS FAITH LIEK THAT.
WE HAVE HAD TO ENDOUR YOUR OPPRESSION.
THE WHITE MAN HAS EXPLOITED OVER 9000 undocumented immigrants ,and ur all jew pigs.
u better not be doing that shit around me.
AnonymousElektron 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AnonymousElektron
Right - another asshole demanding "respect" and then goes on to say...."and ur all jew pigs." rRight after he said, "NO U CAN ,U CANOT GO ATTACKIN OTHER PPLS FAITH LIEK THAT."
Maybe you should cut your own fucking head off.
Stalicone 3 days ago
@Stalicone you are not much better yourself, demanding respect while disrespecting others in the name of free speech....
MlLKMAN 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MlLKMAN
I don't demand anyone respect me! Where have you seen me say that at all? You know, you don't have to lie to make a point, and I keep catching you in them...lies, made up shit, fabrications...is that all you can do? I didn't even "demand" you respect me when commenting on my own vids...did I? DID I? - Lying sack of crap!
Stalicone 1 day ago
@nuderobot
Exactly right - but these assholes will NEVER get it.
Stalicone 3 days ago
Can I please use your videos in our news show?
AtheismTV 3 days ago
This is the diffrence between religious people and atheists.
Atheists tend to most of the time mock something they dislike it shows no respect because atheism has no real morals. Yes america has freedom of speech to mock abd insualt others diffrent from you. What a great moral nation :)
pamuk7 3 days ago
@pamuk7
From your own youtube page (channel) "Zionism is the CANCER of the whole world", "Can you believe that Christians believe that God was a baby? walking around in diapers?". "EXPOSE CHRISTINITY THE ANTI-CHRIST ST.PAUL WHO TURNED CHRISTIANS INTO PAGANS MAKING THEM WORSHIP THE CREATION INSTEAD OF THE CREATOR ALLAH" So, apparently it is OK for you to mock, denigrate and disrespect the religions and beliefs of others, and you say YOU are more moral?
Stalicone 3 days ago
@pamuk7
What YOU ARE is another hypocritical FULL OF SHIT Muslim supremacist! Fuck you and your hypocrisy!
Stalicone 3 days ago
@pamuk7
In fact, you are no better than the Muslim douchebag who was telling me how much more "moral" he is because Islam prohibits "fornication" and then later when I REALLY got under his skin, bragged about how "I was just pissed off, because he fucks lots of "white women". (as if I care who he fucks - I don't) What I do care about and will relentlessly point out is Islamic supremacy, Islamic hypocrisy, and the inability of Muslims to tolerate criticism of their religion and prophet!
Stalicone 3 days ago
@pamuk7
yeah islam knows about morals
-.-
having sex with children
beating your wife
having sex slaves
killing non believers
stealing from non believers
lying to non believers
all morals from muslims !
MrFalangist 3 days ago
@MrFalangist i knew you people were fuckin racists.
why u posting this racist shit on here anyway?????
u a white guy, to.
u think it is funny to go insultin his faith?
AnonymousElektron 3 days ago
@AnonymousElektron
oh so all white people are racist ?
it seems ur the racist here !
and for ur information IM LEBANESE !
im from phoenician decent and that makes me a SEMITE ^^
and for ur information islam is not a race !
islam = racist,fascist u should read the quran before u comment me !
if u dont know something about the subject well then SHUT THE FUCK UP dirty RETARD !
MrFalangist 3 days ago
@MrFalangist ur not real lebanese then.
ur just a zionist scum.
are u a jew?
u r a jew and u will get what u deserve, some day.
AnonymousElektron 3 days ago
@AnonymousElektron
LOL u called me a racist ?
u are a dirty nazi and an anti semite !
im half french half lebanese !
im agnostic and i come from a christian family im 0% jewish u racist kid
u dirty muslims are barbaric PIGS who need to be slaughterd !
ALL MUSLIMS NEED TO DIE !
NO FUCKING MERCY !
MrFalangist 3 days ago
@AnonymousElektron
How can you possibly say ANYTHING when your mouth is so full of cock?
Stalicone 3 days ago
@AnonymousElektron
Hey asshole - learn the meaning of the word "Racist"! What "race" is Islam? - MORON
Stalicone 3 days ago
@AnonymousElektron
Why not? You think it's funny to insult people of the Jewish faith! DONT YOU? DONT YOU?
Fuckhead, go suck another camel's ass!
Stalicone 3 days ago
@Stalicone jews are pigs and rodents.
u fuckers gonna pay.
most places in the world u cant say that and u cant say that here.
AnonymousElektron 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AnonymousElektron
Fine you can say and believe that shit all you want. Just don't expect me to "show respect" for you or your "culture" in response....I'm as free to be as big a douchebag as you....remember that.
Stalicone 2 days ago
@Stalicone ur a zionst jew, and u hide behind the fence and u assault us,.
mocking us and attacking the word of god is assaulting us,
AnonymousElektron 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AnonymousElektron
Bwahahahahaha!!! Jew? Guess again! I'm Atheist! Moron.
Stalicone 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AnonymousElektron
And - "attacking" the word of "God" is no different to me than "challenging" the words of Tinkerbell, Santa Claus or even the Lucky Charms Leprechaun... I call "Bullshit" to ANYONE who proclaims anything to be the "word of God". Illiterate, medieval, ignorant idiot.
Stalicone 2 days ago
Atheists are antagonists and Muslims are violent a bad mix! ...ok, seriously I think this was in bad taste from the Atheist but surely not illegal. I do respect free speech, even if I dont think this was a good thing to do. The Muslim should have been charged with assault. Remember this Atheists the Constitution doesnt protect you from being offended or getting your feelings hurt either. Next time a cross or prayer offends you remember the right of free speech and religious expression.
Yeshuamyhope 3 days ago
@Yeshuamyhope
As an Atheist, I agree with your assessment. I also agree there is no such thing as a "right to not be offended". Crosses and prayer do not bother me. It's crosses and prayer in SECULAR institutions. (Like Government meetings, government property, municipal functions, etc...) which should be devoid of ANY religious displays.
Stalicone 3 days ago
@Stalicone Get used to it, this nation was founded by Christians, if you don't like it you can always move to North Korea or China LOL
MlLKMAN 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MlLKMAN
Are you sure? Of these 7 most significant founding fathers, only John Jay can be called an "Orthodox Christian": John Adams,Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, Thomas Jefferson. James Madison, George Washington. In fact, Jefferson himself stated that he did not believe in "the holy trinity" or the "Virgin birth of Jesus". (Look up the Jefferson Bible)
Stalicone 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MlLKMAN
"Jesus did not mean to impose Himself on mankind as the Son of God, physically speaking, I have been convinced by the writings of men more learned than myself in the lore." -- Thomas Jefferson's letter to William Short, August 4, 1820
Stalicone 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MlLKMAN
Historian Barry Schwartz writes: "George Washington's practice of Christianity was limited and superficial because he was not himself a Christian... He repeatedly declined the church's sacraments. Never did he take communion, and when his wife, Martha, did, he waited for her outside the sanctuary... Even on his deathbed, Washington asked for no ritual, uttered no prayer to Christ, and expressed no wish to be attended by His representative." [New York Press, 1987, pp. 174-175]
Stalicone 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MlLKMAN
". . . Some books against Deism fell into my hands. . . It happened that they wrought an effect on my quite contrary to what was intended by them; for the arguments of the Deists, which were quoted to be refuted, appeared to me much stronger than the refutations; in short, I soon became a thorough Deist."
. Benjamin Franklin
Stalicone 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MlLKMAN
"What is it the New Testament teaches us? To believe that the Almighty committed debauchery with a woman engaged to be married; and the belief of this debauchery is called faith." - Thomas Paine
How much more can you take? Hahahahaha
Stalicone 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MlLKMAN
You know, If you simply want to learn cool stuff from me, why don't you just ask nicely?
Stalicone 1 day ago
If the you were being choked then you would not have been able to speak. Stop being such a pussy and get over it. You did something offensive and someone stopped you. WIMP!
jennyohno79 3 days ago
False claim I see no attack in this video
klikgamee 4 days ago 2
Judges must make rulings based upon the law and not their personal opinions. Under the law, this was assault and battery and the Muslim was rightfully charged. The renegade judge was promoting an agenda. He needs to be kicked off the bench, and disbarred if he's also an attorney.
JarOfRats 4 days ago
Personally I wouldn't have done it out of respect for someone's belief.And yet he's in America not Saudi Arabia he has the right to say whatever he wants.The Muslim guy was wrong period I'm sorry he was offended but he doesn't have the right putting his hands on anyone.
IdiotsRevolution 4 days ago
you guys are a bunch of idiots! why would you mock them by dressing up as Mohammed? you should use your brain and talk/debate on their views. make them think! you wont get to anyone by simply making them angry. In my opinion, you guys are the fools here and therefor make atheist look bad.
driftmyfc 4 days ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
@driftmyfc
"you guys are a bunch of idiots! why would you mock them by dressing up as Mohammed? you should use your brain and talk/debate on their views. make them think! you wont get to anyone by simply making them angry. In my opinion, you guys are the fools here and therefor make atheist look bad."
Idiot. The time for discussion has passed, it is time for exposure. These people do not respect our culture, did you watch the video?
patio87 4 days ago
@driftmyfc it's an exercise of freedom to show that their beliefs do not apply to non-muslims. they have to accept the rights of freedom of speech that also applies to them if they want to make fun of jesus or any other fantasy figure.
TheRaellz 4 days ago
@driftmyfc
Satire is important to free speech and a form of debate in itself. It's meant to be critical theatrically and it forces someone to either rethink or defend their beliefs. His costume can be counted as such. Also, remember that he was in a Halloween parade with other zombies, ghouls, and even a "Zombie Pope" and meant as a joke. Regardless if you think it's funny or not resorting to violence over speech is never acceptable. And besides, it's just a costume.
loszhor 4 days ago
@loszhor
Outstanding understanding - Sir I applaud you
Stalicone 3 days ago
@driftmyfc
I think the point that many are making is that Muslims won't tolerate honest debate. And really, why should we debate? I don't want to "change" anyone's faith...I do want to be free to poke fun at other peoples "sacred cows". I should be free to criticize, to poke fun, to satirize...This is AMERICA and those are sacred traditions. ISLAM IS NOT EXEMPT!
Stalicone 4 days ago
What a douche.
tmbasser 4 days ago
The judge was wrong here, your attacker should be fined and jailed. But dude YOU share responsibility for this fight too. What happened to civil society? You don't purposely offend people so egregiously then call the cops when you get into a fight. That's a bitch move. What if you went as "Zombie Marine Baby-Killer" or "Jobless Nigger Zombie from Plantation Land" and got choked? People wouldn't bat an eyelash if you were knocked out.
mattbmattb 5 days ago
@mattbmattb
"What happened to civil society?" Is what you asked. In a civil society we don't harm someone if they piss us off. Even if they wear a very offensive costume, as you mentioned, and everyone would like to. Cuss him the hell out but keep your hands to yourself. Mr. Perce bearing any responsibility because someone else can't control themself doesn't hold water.
Unpopular speech may fire us up but as adults our only responsibly to each other is to use words not violence.
loszhor 5 days ago
@loszhor I've seen this argument way too many times on this page. No one is saying that violence is ok, cause it's not. BUT, the guys that are dressed up are opening the door to pissing people off. That is their fault. There are better ways to make a point.
Theocrooks 4 days ago
@Theocrooks
No one gets to decide for others what's the acceptable way to make a point. This guy's costume is satire on his view of religion and remember there was also a "Zombie Pope" so he and his friends weren't just speaking at one and yet everyone but that one guy could take it. Satire can piss you off but there is no moral justification for the "they were asking for it" argument. This would mean violence is justified against certain speech under certain circumstances.
loszhor 4 days ago
@loszhor "No one gets to decide for others what's the acceptable way to make a point. " Yes they do. Violence, for example, is an inappropriate way to make a point, is it not? Shouldn't democracy say so? And please understand that there is a difference between asking for it, and pushing the limits. The did not directly ask for it, but they are trying to be inciteful.
Theocrooks 4 days ago
@Theocrooks
Apples and oranges. Violence is physical and harms others but speech is verbal and the only thing speech can hurt are feelings. Remember, we are talking about points made through speech."Shouldn't democracy say so?" Should a group of other people decide what speech is ok or not? NEVER. Perjury, slander, threats can harm but wearing a costume can't.
And what fine line do you draw between asking for it and and pushing the limits? Incitefulness is no excuse for violence.
loszhor 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@loszhor That's not apples and oranges. If you make the point that "No one gets to decide for others what's the acceptable way to make a point", then you did not make the distinction between violence and speech.
"Should a group of other people decide what speech is ok or not? NEVER. " How would you have it then? Every man for himself? At some point, there is groups deciding what is ok to say, and what isn't. Should a group of other people decide what speech is ok or not? NEVER.
Theocrooks 3 days ago
@Theocrooks
Late reply, it got marked as spam and it didn't go to my inbox. OPINIONS ARE NOT SPAM GUYS!
The distinction is clear, violence is physical and speech is words. Acts of violence with weapons to make a point is far different from a satirical act with words or images.
When you said "Every man for himself?" I had to think but is that not what freedom of speech is? Everyone man with his own opinion. Opinions are our own and no one has the power on how to say or feel.
loszhor 3 days ago
@loszhor A costume can't harm? You're arguing before even thinking about counter examples. Spend 3 seconds thinking about abortion, and I'm sure you could come up with an offensive example.
Why is you tube so bad at logic? I lose my cool so quickly with people who seem like they just want to argue, and when they're not good at it. My point is that the OP people are mocking concepts/ideas that people hold dear. You are probably going to piss some people off. Even though it's wrong, they
Theocrooks 3 days ago
@Theocrooks are kind of asking for it. If you walk through a shitty neighborhood at night, you are kinda asking for trouble. Although the trouble that comes is not appropriate, if the people could have walked another way, then they are kind of asking for it.
Theocrooks 3 days ago
@Theocrooks
Yes but if a guy gets mugged walking through a lousy neighborhood, are the cops gonna blame the victim? If the perps get caught will the jury hear that the victim "incited" the mugging? Time to grow up Theo, time to join the world of enlightened thinkers.
Stalicone 3 days ago
@Stalicone gg. you are bad at this. not going to waste my time. peace.
Theocrooks 2 days ago
@Theocrooks
You are confusing offense with physical harm. A costume certainly will NOT harm you. Even an abortion rally costume that can certainly bring offense will not bring you bodily harm by looking at it or reading a sign the wearer might be holding.
Getting pissed off is part of life even about things we hold dear to our hearts. We all just suck it up and get on with our lives. The whole "asking for it" thing is just wiggle room that's it's ok under certain circumstances.
loszhor 3 days ago
@loszhor you are confusing yourself now, sir. You made the distinction between costumes and speech, neither of which are physical harm.
Read the fucking comments. I, in no way ever, even HINTED that there is fucking wiggle room. Are you trolling? I specifically said violence is wrong. Twice. How you and the other guy I was talking to heard "oh violence is ok under certain circumstances" is only a guess. Are you guys so stuck in your head that you're not really listening? Just arguing?
Theocrooks 3 days ago
@Theocrooks
No, I have always implied that costumes fall within speech. Like I said earlier the costume is satire, theatrical criticism. And that's my point exactly it can't harm you. So we at last agree then?
I know you said that violence was wrong but you keep ending it by making an example with "they are kind of asking for it" to top it off. Indeed, that is wiggle room especially when applied to what happened here. I don't know who the "other guy" is.
Calm down. :/
loszhor 3 days ago
@loszhor I get heated sometimes. There is no wiggle room. For the third time. BUT they are putting themselves in harms way. Its like taking a fat kid to the candy store. Are you to blame if he east candy? No. But you certainly were in the realm of danger by putting him there. That's a crap analogy, but I hope you get the point finally. Violence=not ok. But, it was a stupid move on the OP's part.
Theocrooks 3 days ago
@Theocrooks
There is ONE thing you said here I agree with: "That's a crap analogy," Other than that you can take everything you have said.....and flush it.
Stalicone 3 days ago
@Stalicone Cool. I knew you were a derp. I may wonder if you're retarded or something. If I've already said that violence is never they way, like 10 times now, but youre still trying to teach me that, then maybe you're retarded. I can't blame it on reading comprehension cause you seem to grasp that. Maybe just troll. Either way, not worth my time. Good day sir. The actions were not right. If you dont understand that, clear as day now, then I can't help you.
Theocrooks 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Theocrooks
One more time so I can get through the willful density...Yes, you said violence is not ok...fine and you should have ended it there. YOU added the equivocation that somehow he should have "Known" it would happen. And that he "tried" to provoke...and my answer to you AGAIN is SO WHAT???? That shit is IRRELEVANT
Stalicone 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Theocrooks
And in fact, you use the word "retarded" which is an offensive epithet to those who are mentally disabled. Do you have any shame? Remorse? You are every bit as disrespectful and offensive as the Atheists you have criticized.
Stalicone 2 days ago
@Theocrooks
That's just blaming the victim logic. It's excuse making for bad behavior. The excuse itself is the wiggle room. The analogy made seems mild but applied to the topic at hand it's got no standing. The guy is walking a parade in a provocative costume and someone in the crowd gets butthurt and attacks him and the excuse is: Well, if he didn't piss him off in the first place it wouldn't have happened.
Looks like we are coming to agree to disagree time. We know where we stand.
loszhor 2 days ago
@loszhor You are bad at this. Sorry. I see you arguing with everyone and just being stubborn. No one is placing blame, but make up your own story if you like. Good bye.
Theocrooks 2 days ago
@Theocrooks
"I see you arguing with everyone and just being stubborn."
I've only been talking with you, are you sure you got the right person?
Sorry, you couldn't end this with more class. :/
loszhor 2 days ago
@loszhor CONT Honestly, I appreciate your composure.
Theocrooks 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@loszhor
It's all good Los...I noticed Theo made exactly the same comments to me, i.e., "You are bad at this" That is how he discounts arguments he cannot deal with! I'm so glad to see there are those here who believe in Freedom and our Constitution. It was very lonely for a while....
Stalicone 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@loszhor Shit, sorry. This other guy. You actually had a decent amount of logic, respectability, and even vocabulary. It's not everyday I get to hear remonstration.
On another point, I the truth is, most certainly, if the OP's didn't start this, nothing would have happened. But, and I hope you follow, that in now way signifies that its ok for violence. It's not wiggle room. There is nothing that is ok about that. These concepts are not mutually exclusive. (Sorry this was supposed to go to you)
Theocrooks 2 days ago
@Theocrooks Shit, sorry. This other guy. You actually had a decent amount of logic, respectability, and even vocabulary. It's not everyday I get to hear remonstration.
On another point, I the truth is, most certainly, if the OP's didn't start this, nothing would have happened. But, and I hope you follow, that in now way signifies that its ok for violence. It's not wiggle room. There is nothing that is ok about that. These concepts are not mutually exclusive.
Theocrooks 2 days ago
@loszhor Truth is, if he didn't piss the guy off, this never would have happened. That's the truth. It still doesn't make it excusable. If you dont get that, then sorry.
Theocrooks 2 days ago
@Theocrooks
Mostly because your logic has NO basis in LAW. I'm sorry, but you have accused me of inciting YOU several times now, and that I'm a lousy debater, but the fact is, YOU HAVE NO ANSWER.....I will try one more time because you actually seem on the verge of a "revelation" THE ANSWER TO OFFENSIVE SPEECH IS MORE SPEECH NOT VIOLENCE! Get it yet? Or are we too naive to think grown ups should exhibit some self control?
Stalicone 3 days ago
@Stalicone You are a lousy debater. You don't listen to things that are quite clearly stated. You also argue against things that I never said. It's like I'm arguing with a robot. That makes me think troll. GGPO.
Theocrooks 2 days ago
@loszhor
Ive given up on Theo...Hes tried to make this point several times and doesn't get the fact that - in THIS country VIOLENCE IS A CRIME! WORDS ARE NOT! He intractibly tries to blame the victim as if a rape victim is responsible for inciting her attacker because she was pretty or wore skimpy clothes or even was a slut. THERE IS NO EXCUSE ON THE PART OF THE ATTACKER!
Stalicone 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Stalicone This is the idiot I was talking about earlier. He can't seem to get the point that I have already said violence is not ok. I think you summed it up well earlier when you wrote, "I do get your point that these Atheists were indelicate and offensive and there is additional truth to your observation that they should have KNOWN what would happen. But isn't that the sad part?"
Theocrooks 2 days ago
@Stalicone oh wait. that went to you.
Theocrooks 2 days ago
@Theocrooks
You're trying your bullshit "blame the victim" routine with another lover of civil rights and freedom? When are you going to learn that you will never change the minds of people who love freedom and the right to think and speak freely....even if it pisses people off. No one seems to give a shit about "pissing people off" until its the MUSLIMS who are "pissed off". TOUGH SHIT! Get used to it!
Stalicone 4 days ago
@Stalicone If you can read, see that I never once said that they deserved it. I'm not sure if you can read though, because I already said that 5 times. I forgot you are a troll that just wants to argue. I dont even think you know that you are being a troll though.
Also, if you've learned one thing so far, it could be "dont generalize".
"No one seems to give a shit about "pissing people off" until its the MUSLIMS who are "pissed off"" is wrong. Just plain wrong. Do I need to explain why?
Theocrooks 4 days ago
@Stalicone My Gosh. I just got your point. And you have fully misunderstood me. I never, not once, said that the right to free speech should be taken away. I dont think it should. I do think that people should be respectful human being though, and not be dicks. The guys in the video were being dicks and had to have wondered if there would be some sort of recompense for their actions. Does that make sense? BTW, it would be great if you read better. I understand championing a cause,
Theocrooks 4 days ago
@Theocrooks In likewise, I'm sick of people being disrepectful of hitler and nazism. How can they not expect retaliation?
mendelbot 3 days ago
@mendelbot Be impartial when able. Talk about his feats as his feats and his mistakes as his mistakes.
Theocrooks 3 days ago
@Theocrooks
No, Theo - I haven't misunderstood you. I'm simply trying to show that offensive speech is NEVER a reason for violence. I have been subjected to offensive speech and remonstrations for my entire life, yet I have never physically assaulted anyone for it.
I do get your point that these Atheists were indelicate and offensive and there is additional truth to your observation that they should have KNOWN what would happen. But isn't that the sad part? - Contd
Stalicone 3 days ago
@Stalicone
indelicate? Thats a severe understatement. Freedom of Speech is not the same as dressing up as a religious figure to mock an entire culture. There was nothing in their attempt to even convey a message. All I saw was two zombies dressed like religious figures and their sign saying that god=awful. If you hide behind freedom of speech, how would you feel if I screwed your wife or girlfriend and went around carrying a sign about it. What they did was an insult not satire.
mjblack05 3 days ago
@mjblack05
If you screwed my wife (first I would be AMAZED that you would even WANT to - Hahahaha) and then carried a sign about it (I honestly don't think you would want ANYONE to know! Hahahaha) No, I wouldn't be offended enough to attack you. And in this country, Free Speech is not predicated on a subjective opinion like whether it was satire or an insult...BOTH are protected.
Stalicone 3 days ago
@Stalicone I think you missed the point. Our founding fathers came up with freedom of speech to allow people to speak out without fear of being imprisoned. This isnt the same situation, we're talking back then that people being arrested for disagreeing with the government. Fast forward to today, I think if our founding fathers saw this, they would have changed freedom of speech because the people in the video are spreading hate messages. Its one thing to disagree, its another to flat out offend.
mjblack05 3 days ago
@mjblack05
Unfortunately, your historical assessment, may seem logical and make you "feel good" it is simply not accurate. Political and social discourse has a long tradition of irreverence and denigration (refer to the Adams/Jackson election of 1828 for examples). The founders well understood that Free Speech is not only confined to political discourse but ANY subject whether philosophical, religious, political etc...
Stalicone 3 days ago
@Stalicone I think you are trying to broadly generalize free speech to make anything acceptable. If you threaten someone with words, even if no physical action is taken, you still can be held accountable and thrown in jail, which goes against your argument. You can also be thrown in jail speaking certain phrases to minors.
mjblack05 3 days ago
@mjblack05
Again you are incorrect. Look more deeply into this thread for my analysis on "Fighting words", Threats, False Alarms, etc.... I never said "Anything goes" HOWEVER, When it comes to criticizing a RELIGION, there is no PERSONAL attack, threat or false alarm....
Stalicone 3 days ago
@Stalicone It is if you do not understand the religion and culture. Instigating a fight is just as bad as starting it. Its one thing to not believe in God but to literally insult others is an abuse of free speech. While I never said they should be thrown in jail, its people like that who intentionally instigate people who cause problems. They werent conveying anything meaningful except their disrespect for others, so why should anyone respect them?
mjblack05 3 days ago
@mjblack05
You asked "so why should anyone respect them?" The answer is....They shouldn't! They are as free to use words as anyone else. WHAT THEY ARE NOT FREE TO DO IS ANSWER WORDS WITH VIOLENCE. Have you looked at how much filth is coming from the hypocritical assholes who demand respect for their "culture" and then use epithets like "Jew Pigs" and "Christian Antichrist"? Don't excoriate me for saying the answer to offensive speech is MORE speech.
Stalicone 3 days ago
@mjblack05
Apparently, among the loudest Muslims here, "respect" is a one way street....So I say again, if this is the hypocrisy you live by, FUCK YOU AND YOUR PROPHET!
Stalicone 3 days ago
@Stalicone Damn. You're angry bro. Sorry if you had to go through something crappy. I just hope you're not some closed minded bigot. I used to wonder if you're a troll, now I just think you need some thinking time. You seem angry.
Theocrooks 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Theocrooks
More hyperbole without facts. It is YOUR skills at arguing which are.....substandard.
Stalicone 2 days ago
@mjblack05
In fact, outrageous speech has a very long tradition going back to Greek and Roman philosophers, Oxford, Cambridge, and Parliament. The founders didn't "come up with" freedom of speech, they merely acknowledged it as a "natural right", that is, one that CANNOT be "taken away" by Government. Freedom of speech is not in any sense of the word to be confined to political discourse, a position long supported by SCOTUS and founders like Jefferson and Franklin.
Stalicone 3 days ago
@mjblack05
"Without Freedom of Thought, there can be no such thing as Wisdom; and no such thing as public Liberty, without Freedom of Speech." - Franklin
"Better a thousandfold abuse of free speech than denial of free speech."
Charles Bradlaugh
"By placing discretion in the hands of an official to grant or deny a license, such a statute creates a threat of censorship that by its very existence chills free speech."
Harry A. Blackmun
Stalicone 3 days ago
@mjblack05
"Everybody favours free speech in the slack moments when no axes are being ground."
Heywood Broun
"The Framers of the Constitution knew that free speech is the friend of change and revolution. But they also knew that it is always the deadliest enemy of tyranny."
Hugo Black
"Without free speech no search for truth is possible... no discovery of truth is useful."
Charles Bradlaugh
"You must stand for free speech in the streets."
Mary Harris Jones
Stalicone 3 days ago
@Stalicone The irony of what you just said proves my point. The people you quoted were speaking in the same light as what I said. No where in any of those quotes does it state that free speech be used to belittle, berate, or condemn someones beliefs because it differs from their own. Speaking out against something you disagree with does not mean you should be offensive. Did MLK insult people with his speech? No.
mjblack05 3 days ago
@mjblack05
No, MLK didn't but that was HIS choice and HIS style. Abbie Hoffman certainly DID. As did Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton DID (hence the famous duel) JQ Adams and A. Jackson most certainly DID...which proves my point....IT IS THE SPEAKERS CHOICE!
Stalicone 3 days ago
@mjblack05
And I dont see how I have proved your point. In fact, the opposite is true. Who has limited the speech of THESE offensive speakers? Jeremiah Wright, Louis Farrakhan, Elijah Mohammed, Jesse Jackson, Rush Limbaugh, Don Imus, Andrew Dice Clay, Anderson Cooper, WBC, KKK, Neo-Nazis...etc...etc...etc...You simply aren't getting it. The limiting factor to offensive speech is public revulsion, NOT "criminalizing" speech. The answer to offensive speech - is MORE speech.
Stalicone 3 days ago
@Stalicone Thats funny, you discounted some forms of speech, like threats and false alarms, but those are forms of speech. Removing forms of speech that hurt your arguments isnt a way to win a debate. Second, the people you keep listing are not people parading in public and in a person's face. I dont like Rush Limbaugh? I dont have to tune to his station. Just because hate speech is tolerated, doesnt make it right and in most cases criminal like threats of bodily harm.
mjblack05 3 days ago
@mjblack05
I didn't "discount" them, The Supreme Court of the United States did. SCOTUS has long held precedents that govern Speech. Like threats of Bodily harm, communicating false alarms, Fighting words (which have to be of a PERSONAL nature, sorry making fun of a dead prophet doesn't qualify.)
Stalicone 3 days ago
@Stalicone Hey, you were the one bringing up quotes about how everything is covered by freedom of speech, now you want to limit it and hiding behind the supreme court? If freedom of speech can be limited, then its subjected to different interpretations. Its a dangerous path when you take one of the crux is that all speech is free. My point was never about limiting freedom of speech, it was about how inconsiderate these people were and how their actions provoked the incident.
mjblack05 3 days ago
@mjblack05
Wow - total misunderstanding here, so I will patiently try to help you understand. I never proposed "Anarchy", which is what you are suggesting. The limitations on speech in the USA are fairly clear (murky in some areas, true - like the newly adopted Hate crimes statutes which criminalizes speech when coupled with criminal ACTS.) What I object to is your assertion that their SPEECH (not actions my friend) "provoked" the incident. That is fallacious.
Stalicone 3 days ago
@mjblack05
Now, I can allow for your misconception that I was somehow advocating "There are no limits" to speech, and I'm sorry, that simply is not true. The problem here is that you have been arguing with a Law Student who has studied extensively on civil rights, and my mistake was in assuming that you have the requisite understanding of concepts like "Hate Speech", "Threats", "Fighting words" etc....all are distinct legal concepts and NOT of my own invention.
Stalicone 3 days ago
@mjblack05
Again, I urge you to read the wiki on free speech in the US. It is a great primer which will only serve to help you and I to achieve a "meeting of the minds", if that is of interest to you.
Stalicone 3 days ago
@Stalicone I suggest you go read it the wikipedia page and read up on the limitations. I think you just have not grasps the concept that there are limitations. My point was all the quotes you provided was about not limiting free speech. The limits are there to protect people, which is why what they did was not only offensive but puts them into a bad position. The judge was unprofessional, no question there but where I'm coming from is cause and effect and the effect was an angry muslim.
mjblack05 3 days ago
@mjblack05
Well certainly the cause and effect was an angry Muslim - on that we agree. Speech is often designed to elicit anger....Otherwise it wouldn't need to be protected. What is NOT allowed is allowing your anger to manifest itself in physical violence....Period! End of story.
Stalicone 3 days ago
@mjblack05 derp. good point.
Theocrooks 2 days ago
@mjblack05 Do yourself a favor and research the wiki on "Freedom of Speech" It will be a great place for you to start....Free speech does not mean Anarchy. But walking around in a costume depicting Mohammed is CLEARLY PROTECTED SPEECH
Stalicone 3 days ago
@Stalicone Ok, lets go look at wikipedia...hmm this excerpt does good. " subject to limitations, as with libel, slander, obscenity and incitement to commit a crime." I know what freedom of speech is, and mostly what the people in the video did was morally obscene. Please do not try to insult me again. Knowingly walking around with the sign that says you are mohammed is also incitement.
mjblack05 3 days ago
@mjblack05
NOT according to the law. Incitement has to consist of a speaker exhorting people to commit a crime. Making fun of a prophet DOES NOT QUALIFY LEGALLY!
Stalicone 3 days ago
@Stalicone Making fun of a prophet, knowing full well that the people who revere said figure will be incited to commit crimes? Are you really that naive? I think over the last decade that when a foreign cartoonist made fun of the prophet in a cartoon and he was murdered shortly after that it would be common knowledge that making fun of said person would incite a culture to do illegal activities. So yes they incited it. Now I'm done.
mjblack05 3 days ago
@mjblack05
You may be of the opinion that they "incited" it, but I'm sorry, legally, no "incitement" occurred. Try to argue FACTS and LAW and not your personal opinion. And no, NO INCITEMENT took place - next question?.
Stalicone 3 days ago
@mjblack05
You cannot "libel" a dead guy (printed words) You cannot "slander" a dead guy (spoken words) Obscenity is one of the most difficult cases to bring (see US v Larry Flynt) and incitement requires (exhortation to commit a crime) NONE of these can be applied to walking around dressed as Mohammed.
Stalicone 3 days ago
@mjblack05
And actually yes - many of them DO indeed parade in public espousing offensive ideas....That is not a legal theory at all, that somehow speech uttered via airwaves has a different "standard" than speech uttered in a "public forum". In fact, because the "airwaves" are considered the "property of the people" in the USA, that can be construed as public a forum as any.
Stalicone 3 days ago
@Stalicone I'm done arguing cause now you're trying to take freedom of speech and talk about limitation on TV and airwaves, which most follow decency guidelines. The further censorship of these programs are not enforced by the federal government. Comedy Central, a cable channel does not need to censor anything because its not open airwaves, yet they still do. Its called common decency, and on that note I'm done with you cause you'll just keep going in circles dodging the truth.
mjblack05 3 days ago
@mjblack05
Wow - I tried to help you. YOU are the one who brought in the TV and Radio angle.....as if there is a difference between offensive speech (Constitutionally) on the radio or TV Vs. a public forum....We are not talking about corporate standards. We are talking about the CONSTITUTION
Stalicone 3 days ago
@mjblack05
I know you are done arguing because the more you are learning on this subject, the more these concepts are beginning to find root in your mind.... Of that I am glad. I hope, as one of the less intransigent apologists of Muslim violence here - you may actually understand that criticism of ANY "sacred cow" is a long and dearly held American tradition. One that many of us are willing to defend with our lives....(Count me in that group)
Stalicone 3 days ago
@mjblack05
"Ignorant free speech often works against the speaker. That is one of several reasons why it must be given rein instead of suppressed.
Anna Quindlen
"Free speech means the right to shout 'theatre' in a crowded fire."
Abbie Hoffman
Free speech is not to be regulated like diseased cattle and impure butter. The audience that hissed yesterday may applaud today, even for the same performance.
William O. Douglas
Stalicone 3 days ago
@mjblack05 Yo mjblack. This guy is an idiot or a troll (Stalicone). Do not waste your time on him. He will make accusations about things that you didn't say, and will just try and push his points without listening very well. Or he's a jackass troll. I just spent 4 days trying to reason with him and it was pretty useless. Fair warning.
Theocrooks 2 days ago
@Theocrooks
If citing law and precedent is "Trolling", Then my friend you have just admitted that you are completely incapable of arguing with me in a cogent way. So far not ONE of you has been able to refute my analysis of 1st amendment rights - NOT ONE! And why would you try? I have an entire legal library full of opinions and precedent at my disposal. All you have, is what you "think" is right. Theo, in the world of debate, you show up at a gunfight, with a pocketknife.
Stalicone 2 days ago
@Stalicone It's like youre not listening and youre in your own world. Maybe you can't see that. I saw your poorly "composed" arguments with other people. Horrible logic. Maybe yo'ure a narcissist and can't see how faulted you are. I'm not really sure, cause you don't seem to get it no matter how many people tell you. You also don't listen well. You kinda just argue. It's all good. Either you are a good troll, or you really dont get it from lack of intelligence, or you're mental. Peace.
Theocrooks 2 days ago
@Theocrooks
Let me hear some examples of my "poor" logic....cite them! refute them! back up your arguments with your own citations!......Hahahahaha, YOU CAN'T
Stalicone 1 day ago
@Stalicone I already have. Like 10 times. So have a bunch of other people. Open your eyes. Stop being so desperate to argue. Peace.
Theocrooks 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Theocrooks
What a lying sack of crap. (and here is why...THAT'S called citing facts) and here they are, other than Hyperbole, Ad-Hominem attacks (like "You don't listen well", You're a troll" etc...) AND your personal opinion, you haven't cited one source, either legal or historic, that supports your crappy assertions. I have provided TONS of both. See, that's HOW you argue successfully...make a point and back it up with FACTS...not what you THINK.
Stalicone 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Theocrooks
"Damn. You're angry bro. Sorry if you had to go through something crappy."....Perhaps THAT is what you try to pass off as arguing "facts". I don't get it Theo, how is YOUR OPINION that I am "angry" refute my arguments? Answer? It doesn't! All you try to do is portray ME as a nut or a mental case hoping that it somehow discredits my points. It doesn't! It only makes you look WEAK.....
Stalicone 1 day ago
@Stalicone Thank you for keeping a cool head when I did not. It was much easier to cool down that way. I've been dealing with an idiot or a troll on here, who is now messaging you. I might have just got trolled pretty hard. I've already said 10 times that violence is not ok, and he can't seem to understand that. I agree, still, that violence is not the answer. Your summary is good though. "CONT
Theocrooks 2 days ago
@Theocrooks wtf. why is this going to you. damnit. you are the idiot troll I was talking about. All you if is shitty ad hominems and a desire to argue. You have terrible logic, make up things that I didn't say, and press points that hadn't been a part of the conversation. If you dont see that, then I'm sorry. You're a troll, or you lack the intelligence to see it. Try and see what I'm saying please, if you're not a troll. Either way, peace out.
Theocrooks 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Theocrooks
And you say it is ME suffering from a lack of intelligence....I still haven't seen you present ONE citable source that supports any refutation of what I have been saying...NOT ONE! And in the process of losing your MacNuggets, you start replying incoherently to...well, who knows who! And I'm the stupid one...I'm the mental one......Hahahahahaha! You are so far out of your depth, you don't even realize it. Your hyperbolic nonsense refutes NOTHING...Not even a good try.
Stalicone 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Theocrooks
What I am trying to help you wrap your tiny little head around is this concept. Try arguing the issue and stop making ME the "issue". It's most unfortunate that you won't because you know you have NOTHING, your only recourse is to attack ME...i.e., "Stupid", "mental", Troll" etc....All because you know your arguments are weak and legally unsupportable.
Stalicone 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Stalicone CONTINUATION. "This is the idiot I was talking about earlier. He can't seem to get the point that I have already said violence is not ok. I think you summed it up well earlier when you wrote, "I do get your point that these Atheists were indelicate and offensive and there is additional truth to your observation that they should have KNOWN what would happen. But isn't that the sad part?"" I think that is one of my main points. These guys knew better.
Theocrooks 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Theocrooks
No, I got your point that "violence is not ok" but then you offer that the Atheist "Should have known" that would happen. He probably DID. Still, whether he was TRYING to provoke a reaction or whether he was blissfully ignorant of the likelihood...IS IRRELEVANT! THAT is what YOU don't seem to get.
Stalicone 2 days ago
@Theocrooks
(2) Isn't it sad that the criticism; "Muslims respond to criticism of their religion with violence" is proven to be true time and time again? Ask yourself, When the criticism is leveled that; "your religion is violent, and that its adherents cannot handle criticism without responding violently." And THEN the response is - violence. Doesn't that simply prove the criticism accurate?
Stalicone 3 days ago
@Stalicone hasty genearlization. It's a thing. Look it up. Dude, do you really have nothing better to do than argue on youtube? I see you arguing with everyone.
Theocrooks 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Theocrooks
Then you are not reading carefully, I'm NOT arguing with "everyone". Check more of my responses.
Stalicone 2 days ago
@Stalicone but when you are so into the cause, then you aren't really understanding the persons meaning, then you will lose a lot of people. (I think this is important for you too see, as there have been a couple times where you are arguing with me with a viewpoint that I never espoused.)
Theocrooks 4 days ago
@Theocrooks
You didn't espouse it, you did suggest that - they should have known that they would get that response. And indeed, upon reflection, I agree! They SHOULD have known that at least ONE Muslim who simply could not handle having his precious little feelings hurt would respond violently. Yup, should have known it. After all, THAT is the main complaint I have with Islam, Not the religion, not the people, not the beliefs....But the absolute prohibition of criticism and satire.
Stalicone 3 days ago
The Muslim guy sounds too calm for choking the guy. :P
TheFlightsofFantasy 6 days ago
@TheFlightsofFantasy
Thats because he's probably choked so many kuffars he's used to it....it's just routine now for another VIOLENT Muslim FANATIC who thinks his precious "Prophet" is above criticism.
Stalicone 4 days ago
@Stalicone Sounds like you're the kind of person this guy is pandering to: people who accept the narrative that Muslims are just inherently violent. When I heard the court case that this guy posted up and read his commentary in the video, it's obvious that he's trying really hard to pander to the "Mozlems are vile-ent" crowd.
With that said, that Muslim guy shouldn't have touched him. But it sounds obvious that the Atheist guy wasn't choking and is being a drama queen.
TheFlightsofFantasy 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheFlightsofFantasy
Indeed - I don't disagree with your assessment of the actual veracity of the court case. My issue is with those who keep asserting that "offending" Islam somehow excuses their violent reaction as "being provoked" THAT is my criticism...."Blame the victim". Whether THIS case actually produced a "victim" IS a matter of debate. However, in light of the DOCUMENTED violent reactions of Muslims in response to ANY perceived "Insult", the criticism is in fact...True.
Stalicone 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Ernest Perce is moronic and sophomoric as is his fellow zombie pope. As adults they know better than to dress like this and parade around in order to antagonize people.
Young kids don't need to see an adult acting like an ass.
mambeux 6 days ago
@mambeux
Actually, young kids SHOULD see it....The SHOULD see that this is a FREE nation of people who have the right to THINK and SPEAK their minds! Get it?
Stalicone 4 days ago