Jacksonville Jaguars Fan Forums

Quote:They also claimed the other day to have 77 trained fighters in 15 states, a little concerning.

 

One thing I strongly believe is that when someone threatens to destroy you or others,  believe them.

Quote:SO mods can direct personal attacks with impunity....... Huh........

 

I worded that specifically to not attack you personally.

Quote:They also claimed the other day to have 77 trained fighters in 15 states, a little concerning.

 

 

Yeah but they're too chicken manure to attack hard targets, only soft ones........

Quote:Yeah but they're too chicken manure to attack hard targets, only soft ones........

 

And we're back to why I'm all for arming the entire population, Personally I avoid "gun free" zones.

Quote:This is what I'm talking about, RJ you seem to be shifting blame on the party that was assaulted, this is because they party they insulted acts out with violence? Why is the victim the one you are criticizing, are we not tolerant to other people that create offensive material every day. Why is this groups "offensive" material unacceptable and akin to bratty kids acting out? Is it bratty kids acting out when Christianity is mocked? Or how about when John Stewart mock political foes? Is all mockery bratty kids or just when Muhammad is mocked? Why is Muhammad different?

 

I, for one, felt the same way about the "art" exhibits that offended Christians. Yes, that was bratty kids acting out. Had Christians attacked the exhibitions violently, would you not condemn them? Are you insinuating that I condone the gunmen who attacked in Texas? Honestly, I feel it goes without saying their actions were abhorrent.

 

The gunmen were to blame for the shooting. Do you honestly and sincerely believe the organizers of the event in Texas were not daring someone to attack them? If not, then what was the point? That we have freedom of speech in the US? That is obvious to all but the most paranoid and delusional.

 

If you stir the pot, or poke the bear, and get burnt or bit, you are partially responsible.

The way that I look at it is this.  These certain works of "art" are made to not only "offend" people of a certain religion, but also to get a certain response.

 

Works of "art" that desecrate certain Christian belief is just as "offensive" as works of "art" that desecrate certain Muslim belief.  Both are meant to be "insulting" and are championed by those in both camps (left and right).

 

The difference is in the response from such acts.  It seems that such acts against the Christian belief is met with harsh words spoken by people.  Acts against the Muslim belief is met with violence and death.

 

Acts or "displays" against the Christian belief is viewed as "art".  Acts or displays against the Muslim belief is viewed as "hatred, racist, etc.".

 

Then you have the "war on Christianity, war on Christmas", etc.  People complain during the Christmas season when a Manger Scene is placed on public property.  Supposedly these people are "offended" that a Manger Scene is placed on public property.

 

The bottom line for me is this.  When something is done that is "offensive" to Christians or those that believe in some form of christian faith, it is "celebrated" or pawned off as a "work of art".  It doesn't matter that it insults and is offensive to most of the population.  Nothing violent happens.

 

When something is done that is offensive to the Muslim faith, it is pawned off as "hateful" or "racist".  When something like this happens, there is violence.  That's the big difference and that is what is changing.

 

You see many on the far left championing the "Robin Hood" effect where you "take from the rich and give to the poor".  This is what actually happened in North Korea, and see how that worked out for them.

Quote:The way that I look at it is this.  These certain works of "art" are made to not only "offend" people of a certain religion, but also to get a certain response.

 

Works of "art" that desecrate certain Christian belief is just as "offensive" as works of "art" that desecrate certain Muslim belief.  Both are meant to be "insulting" and are championed by those in both camps (left and right).

 

The difference is in the response from such acts.  It seems that such acts against the Christian belief is met with harsh words spoken by people.  Acts against the Muslim belief is met with violence and death.

 

Acts or "displays" against the Christian belief is viewed as "art".  Acts or displays against the Muslim belief is viewed as "hatred, racist, etc.".

 

Then you have the "war on Christianity, war on Christmas", etc.  People complain during the Christmas season when a Manger Scene is placed on public property.  Supposedly these people are "offended" that a Manger Scene is placed on public property.

 

The bottom line for me is this.  When something is done that is "offensive" to Christians or those that believe in some form of christian faith, it is "celebrated" or pawned off as a "work of art".  It doesn't matter that it insults and is offensive to most of the population.  Nothing violent happens.

 

When something is done that is offensive to the Muslim faith, it is pawned off as "hateful" or "racist".  When something like this happens, there is violence.  That's the big difference and that is what is changing.

 

You see many on the far left championing the "Robin Hood" effect where you "take from the rich and give to the poor".  This is what actually happened in North Korea, and see how that worked out for them.

The double standard is real.

I think there is a difference when the majority takes swipes at a downtrodden minority.

Quote:I think there is a difference when the majority takes swipes at a downtrodden minority.

Radical Muslims being the downtrodden minority?

Quote:If you stir the pot, or poke the bear, and get burnt or bit, you are partially responsible.

Respectfully, that's crap. This is America, In this culture we don't shoot people for what they say no matter how offensive it might be. If some aliens want to bring their foreign and inferior norms here and try to impose them then we all have as duty to defend our culture. We defend Geller's rights without regard to her content or character because some day it may be yours or my right that needs defense.

Quote:I, for one, felt the same way about the "art" exhibits that offended Christians. Yes, that was bratty kids acting out. Had Christians attacked the exhibitions violently, would you not condemn them? Are you insinuating that I condone the gunmen who attacked in Texas? Honestly, I feel it goes without saying their actions were abhorrent.

 

The gunmen were to blame for the shooting. Do you honestly and sincerely believe the organizers of the event in Texas were not daring someone to attack them? If not, then what was the point? That we have freedom of speech in the US? That is obvious to all but the most paranoid and delusional.

 

If you stir the pot, or poke the bear, and get burnt or bit, you are partially responsible.

 

Of course the question is would you blame the artist for instigating the attack from the Christians?

 

I'm not saying you condone the gunman not at all, I'm saying the  blame is 100% alone on those that commit that aggression. Speaking ignorantly or foolishly is beside the point, that is a protected constitutional right. The moment we start requiring "responsible" free speech is the moment we've allowed the 1st Amendment to be compromised.

 

Otherwise you're saying the acts of aggression work, if you want your specific group to be immune to criticism, ridicule or any other form of discussion commit terror and we will stop.

Quote:I think there is a difference when the majority takes swipes at a downtrodden minority.

 

Not at all, the 1st Amendment is there to protect all speech not just the speech of minorities.

Quote:Of course the question is would you blame the artist for instigating the attack from the Christians?


I'm not saying you condone the gunman not at all, I'm saying the blame is 100% alone on those that commit that aggression. Speaking ignorantly or foolishly is beside the point, that is a protected constitutional right. The moment we start requiring "responsible" free speech is the moment we've allowed the 1st Amendment to be compromised.


Otherwise you're saying the acts of aggression work, if you want your specific group to be immune to criticism, ridicule or any other form of discussion commit terror and we will stop.

I agree with this. Well said. Once you give away your rights, very rarely do you ever get them back. A little here, a little there...

<i>First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—

Because I was not a Socialist.</i>

<i>Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—</i>
<i>Because I was not a Trade Unionist.</i>

<i>Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—</i>
<i>Because I was not a Jew.</i>

<i>Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.</i>

 

 


Martin Niemöller

Quote:First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—

Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.


Martin Niemöller

When they came for me I shot the bastards.

Quote:Radical Muslims being the downtrodden minority?

Oh come on man, you know that contest was focused on the entire religion. The two radicals were just the idiots that over reacted.


But I know you to be very intelligent, you can't honestly say that the entire 99.99 percent of that particular faith are not the current group of antagonism, can you?


Muslims I think are more stigmatized right now than even black folks... Seriously, you see that too, right?

We can't sit here and defend people filming the police, trying to agitate the police, with the defense that it's a protected 1st Amendment right and then criticize this lady. Both are obviously trying to make someone mad, and both have the right to do what they're doing. No one is protected from being subjected to things they find offensive. People are too sensitive, and they expect every one else to cater to their needs. 

 

On the flip side, I read something about how she now wants protection after the attacks. I think that's stupid, too. 

 

For the record, I'm not saying you shouldn't be able to film the police or that every time the police are filmed that it's to agitate the situation. Just saying that sometimes people do things that do nothing more than offend someone.

Quote:We can't sit here and defend people filming the police, trying to agitate the police, with the defense that it's a protected 1st Amendment right and then criticize this lady. Both are obviously trying to make someone mad, and both have the right to do what they're doing. No one is protected from being subjected to things they find offensive. People are too sensitive, and they expect every one else to cater to their needs. 

 

On the flip side, I read something about how she now wants protection after the attacks. I think that's stupid, too. 

 

For the record, I'm not saying you shouldn't be able to film the police or that every time the police are filmed that it's to agitate the situation. Just saying that sometimes people do things that do nothing more than offend someone.

I don't think anyone is criticizing her ability to do the art festival. I think people are criticizing not just the wisdom but also what some view as a perceived attempt to directly antagonize. Now obviously that is based on her past inflammatory statements but IMO, that is all that has been criticized. 

Quote:And we're back to why I'm all for arming the entire population, Personally I avoid "gun free" zones.

With a hypersensitive dose of situational awareness during "Draw Mohammed" contests.