The people who will take to the streets or commit criminal acts are a tiny tiny sliver of the people who support what the protesters do. Only a few Christians actually bomb abortion clinics, but it would be lunacy to say that only a few Christians are anti-abortion.
There aren't many causes that get 20,000 people out protesting violently. That's the sense of scale you need to look at.
Do a search for "american cultural imperialism" and you'll see this isn't just a US-based right-wing idea. It's a pretty widely accepted thing. Liberals in the US are very pro-cultural-imperialism as well -- which is why there are movements HERE to influence laws about homosexuality in Uganda; and why activists HERE fight female circumcision in Africa. That's us trying to get our liberal-slanted cultural norms to win out over their cultural norms.
You're right that the left and right don't agree on the role of Islam in the culture wars. But I don't think you can say that the left doesn't see a culture war to begin with.
Also I don't think films like the one in question are intended to produce an open conflict. To me the purpose they serve is to force Muslims to confront themselves and their beliefs that lead to violent protests over silly and harmless images. I guarantee if every Muslim in the world sat down and watched a new film just like "Innocence of Muslims", the result wouldn't be world war, it would be a total cessation of protests about ANY religious matter after a few weeks. In reality the desensitization campaign can't be so concentrated.. it trickles in slowly. After enough years, maybe decades, I think it'll have the same effect.
I'm not focusing on the content of the speech, just the reactions from violent groups. You brought up the idea that if you give a speech with the expectation that it leads to violence, that makes you responsible. You didn't mention the content of the speech.
So now your idea includes not only whether there will be violence, but whether the message is "morally" responsible for the violence. Pro-gay, not responsible. Anti-Muslim, responsible. What about anti-white speech? If a black civil rights activists says America has a legacy of slavery and whites have a position of privilege due to that, well, that's insulting. He's saying white people have things they don't deserve. So now if a white power group goes around killing blacks, that civil rights speech becomes illegal? Or will you make an executive decision that anti-white speech is in the "not morally responsible" category, or that wasn't anti-white "enough" to be illegal? This is why strong protection of free speech is required, so that we don't have to judge the content to determine whether it's legal. Who makes the call? you?
Also, Muslims riot for many reasons. Possibly a pro-Christian film would do the trick.. IF they were exposed to it and whipped into a frenzy by the local imam. Certainly Christian proselytizing, which is often just pro-Christian speech that doesn't even mention Islam, is illegal in many Muslim countries. If the film were portrayed as a tool of proselytizing I'm sure you'd have no problem starting a riot.
What we do know is that their actions were damaging and there has been a loss of life. People died so now it's more like yelling fire in a theater and people get trampled to death and you want to claim free speech.
I assume you're talking about the Muslims who reported the movie and showed it to crowds and whipped them into a frenzy ready to kill. I agree what they did should be illegal and they bear much responsibility for what happened.
The point here is the film maker knew he was going to trigger violence. He was part of the scheme and did not seem to care who would get killed over it. His film is hate speech at least and treason at worst.
Lol what?? The film maker? The film.. maker. Not the guys who took the film and whipped up the crowds who otherwise would go through life blissfully unaware of Mohammed's many sins.
That makes no sense. It's like suing gun manufacturers for murders using their guns. And then knife manufacturers. And brick manufacturers. And trees. Your path is madness at best, treason at worst.
Yup a film is nothing but a product. A tool. A "hate" film can be educational. It can be used as an object of study. Or it can be used to inspire hate. That's what the Muslims did, and they are the guilty ones.
To carry on your hypothetical, if someone is known to be an unstable violent maniac who has known triggers that incite murderous rampages... don't they get committed to an institution and heavily medicated? If not then society at large bears the greatest part of the responsibility for that rampage.
quote: "Brothers in faith, the Al-Aqsa Mosque remains under oppressive occupation. The Jews continue to defile it with their filth. The only way to liberate it is through Jihad for the sake of Allah."
So.. yeah.
And personally I really appreciate things like that being available to view or read online even though I'm firmly against what they say. It's fascinating, and it's important to learn about your enemies is it not?
you are joking right? I havent seen anyone say this is a good movie, or that it is representitive of how we feel.
I think it's a good movie. It's representative of what I feel. Do a quick google search and you'll find millions of people who believe Mohammed was a child molester, womanizer, abuser, violent, etc. Is it really that shocking? Have you read the Koran and Hadith?
I laughed out loud when I read accounts of some of his revelations. Someone disagrees with or questions Mohammed.. he puts a hand to his head covering his eyes.. "Oh! Allah just spoke to me and it turns out I'm right, so do what I say. End of discussion."
I don't get the shock over this film from non-Muslims. It's like being shocked that atheists find the idea of God stupid and illogical and make up things like the "flying spaghetti monster" to mock religion... DUH. Seriously? You're shocked that some non-Muslims don't like Mohammed and focus on the worst qualities about him?
They didn't produce the film in a Libyan mosque, they were in sunny California. You didn't address my example of anti-gay activists. If anti-gay activists began threatening to kill gays whenever they felt offended by pro-gay-rights speech, then anybody who knows that and engages in pro-gay-rights speech is doing so expecting violence and is thus culpable? I don't think you really believe that since it gives so much moral power to the bad guys. But based on what you're saying I don't see how you distinguish between that example and this film.
Were the protesters of the Danish Mohammed cartoons protested the Danish support of oppressive regimes? Was the murder of Theo van Gogh actually a protest of Dutch imperialism?
I don't buy it. If what you say is true, why wait until there is an offensive movie or cartoon? Why not say "Hey guys, next Thursday, protest at the embassy. Bring your AK."
The protests had everything to do with the movie, it's the only thing that makes sense and matches past protests against similar material.
According to the tenets of Islam, Muslims, Jews, and Christians are all "people of the Book" and all equal in the eyes of Allah (well, maybe Muslims are more equal, but whatever).
Jews and Christians are in theory supposed to be protected and be allowed to live in peace *under Muslim rule*, or if there's an outstanding treaty with a non-Muslim nation. However, if a Jewish or Christian nation is seen as attacking Islam they are fair game. Part of the justification behind 9/11 in Islam is that America is at war with Islam, so Americans are fair game. It's really not much different than the US bombing Dresden or Hiroshima in WWII.
These killers were not true Muslims and I don't mean in the "No True Scotsman" way.
That's exactly what you mean isn't it? They self-identify as Muslims and are supported by a large number of other self-identifying Muslims. Who are you to say what a true Muslim is? Shouldn't you let the numbers speak for themselves? e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_attitudes_towards_terrorism
Where Islam failed was in failing to denounce this kind of behavior in a way that would leave no doubt in the minds of any future imitators and wannabes that mass murder is the work of Iblis
See there's the problem. They could have done that. You are *assuming* that the reason they didn't is because they simply failed to get that message out. It's more likely that they simply will not denounce that kind of behavior in the broad numbers you're talking about because they support it.
Why are you talking about reliable sources? That doesn't make sense. They didn't write a scholarly paper about Mohammed, they made a film that makes fun of him. They did a wonderful job and got the reaction they wanted. I'd say they are successful artists and provocateurs of change and enlightenment. After enough provocation and time Muslims will come to realize that they can't fight modernity. These efforts could lead to hugely positive changes for the Muslim world, far more important than simple political unrest like the Arab Spring. We're talking about changing their underlying culture, not swapping out one group of rulers for another.
Just because words lead to a fight doesn't mean they were fighting words. There are anti-gay activists who would be more than happy to outlaw any pro-gay speech on the basis that it makes them really mad and they might go kill a gay person because it's fighting words.
Why are the people who made the movie lunatics? They are provocative, not crazy.
I don't think it's sad that the demonstrations are proving the film makers right. The demonstrations are sad in and of themselves. The film makers are brave people who expose the true lunatics.
Oh and since I'm feeling particularly generous today, the word you were looking for is pederast (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pederasty). You're welcome, ass. You learned something new today!
Or, and this is just a thought, you could google the words you claim I'm using incorrectly and realize that I'm actually 100% correct, then subsequently go fuck yourself.
I googled it since you're too intellectually lazy to do so. "As a medical diagnosis, pedophilia, or paedophilia, is defined as a psychiatric disorder in persons who are 16 years of age or older typically characterized by a primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children."
In the late 1980s, Marcia Herman-Giddens, then a physician’s associate in the pediatric department of the Duke University Medical Center, started noticing that an awful lot of 8- and 9-year-olds in her clinic had sprouted pubic hair and breasts. The medical wisdom, at that time, based on a landmark 1960 study of institutionalized British children, was that puberty began, on average, for girls at age 11. But that was not what Herman-Giddens was seeing. So she started collecting data, eventually leading a study with the American Academy of Pediatrics that sampled 17,000 girls, finding that among white girls, the average age of breast budding was 9.96. Among black girls, it was 8.87.
Alrighty so what have we learned? Pedophiles have a primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children and female prepubescent children on average start puberty (not finish.. start) before age 10, though it was higher in the past.
So the question is was Poe a pedophile. 1. Did he have a primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children?
a. Was he interested in prepubescent children? It's possible that a 13 year old girl hadn't even started puberty (delayed onset puberty), but not likely. In a quick google search I didn't see any sources one way or the other, just that she was 13.
b. Was it primary or exclusive? No, his first relationship when he was 16 was to a 15 year old (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Elmira_Royster). He also had a relationship with a Mary Devereaux. I didn't find her age but the implication was she was an adult.
We don't have to go any further, the argument that Poe was a pedophile has already failed. You failed. You failed hard. You should go cry about your failure.
If you want a comparison with the US, it's like drug violence spilling over into the US. It's not directly tied to how the US works, but it isn't immune to it.
The difference, which is vital, is that the vast majority of Turks are in one or another Islamic sect, and Islam is a force in the government, whereas the vast majority of Americans are not in gangs and gangs are not a force in the government.
I agree that it's not directly tied to how the US works. I'd say it's not tied at all to how Turkey or the US work. It has nothing to do with the government, it's the people and the religion.
No argument. Not sure why you think though that that disqualifies Malaysia for being a working Islamic democracy.
What I responded to was your assertion that Turkey, Indonesia, and Malaysia are working "quite nicely", which is more qualified than just "working."
The institution of Sharia law as a fully-formed body of law is more worrying - but so far, it hasn't had a huge impact on overall stability.
You're right, and why should there be instability when a Muslim-majority country institutes Islamic law? That's hardly surprising. The question, again, is whether it's working "quite nicely" when minorities are being persecuted, churches being physically attacked or legally shut down, etc.
I mean, by your standards, the US isn't a functioning democracy.
Where do you get that impression? Even when you misunderstood me to mean that I didn't Turkey, Indonesia, and Malaysia are even functioning, how does that translate into the US not functioning? We don't have sharia law, we don't huge crowds of angry Christians burning Muslim neighborhoods and mosques... shoot, here when someone vandalizes a mosque (at night, with no injuries at all) it's decried as a "hate crime" and investigated by the FBI. How can you compare that to what happens in Muslim countries throughout the world?
Again, countless reports of smaller-scale incidents as well. I'm sure you remember when churches were attacked for using the word "allah", which Muslims wanted to keep associated with Islam only; it made international news. Yeah that was good old Malaysia. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-10961282
Look at this little gem from that article: "But some Muslim groups are suspicious of their motives, our correspondent says, saying the use of the word Allah is a ploy to encourage Muslims to convert to Christianity - something that is illegal in the country."
So apparently proselytizing is illegal in Malaysia. HMMMMMM I wonder if that also applies to Muslims encouraging Christians to convert? Nope didn't think so: http://www.prayway.com/unreached/countries/malaysia.html "Constitutional guarantees of religious freedom are under attack, as it is illegal to proselytize Muslims, while Muslims may convert whoever they like."
Remind me to never let you anywhere near any minors.
Okay I'll remind you. Don't let me anywhere near minors. Because I'm allergic to coal dust. Oh whoops I used the word "minor" wrong and so what I said makes no sense at all, just like what you did with pedophile!
It's a real word with a real meaning, instead of mocking me you should learn the correct usage, accept that you were wrong, apologize for being an ass (for bonus points), and move on.
The same thing I think about the huge number of historians and writers who say Jesus/Buddha/other fictional deity was real - good for you, please don't murder me because I disagree.
I guess you don't care to share any of your reasoning. Okay then... good for you? Great contribution to the discussion.
And is it correct? Quite frankly, I find that reputation retarded.
I don't think it's retarded. I've heard quite convincing arguments about so called soft imperialism. And of course our actions in our "sphere of influence" are very protectionary. E.g. Cuban missile crisis versus us now wanting to install missile defense systems so close to Russia, China, Iran, etc.
That's why generalizations are dangerous: they are generally wrong, and lead you to respond incorrectly to political situations.
Calling America an imperialist country isn't a generalization, it's an analysis of the situation and a conclusion that you personally disagree with. In fact I explicitly said such a statement IS NOT a generalization -- nobody things that "most Americans personally engage in imperialism", like getting grants from a king or something. And nobody thinks typical Americans are going around the world raping and killing with impunity.
A nation's reputation is almost certainly not based on a generalization of its citizens.
I know where you're going, but this isn't logic class. If the argument is "All pit bulls are dangerous", then yes, it means that a harmless pitbull is actually not a pitbull.
Hmm, I'm a little confused. That's actually the opposite of what I was going for. I wanted to avoid that little logic puzzle. Bottom line is when people say "Islam is a violent religion" that is NOT equivalent to saying "therefore only violent Muslims are true Muslims." That's a logic puzzle which isn't characteristic of what people mean in ordinary speech.
And you don't see the danger of running with incorrect generalizations?
No because it's not entirely incorrect, especially from the point of view of Muslim fundamentalists -- they are actually 100% right. Their brand of Islam is not accepted or tolerated here, and most people would like to see it wiped out. Only the most limp-wristed college professors ever included the Taliban, for example, under the umbrella of acceptable multiculturalism. Now do you honestly think groups like the Taliban have no support in the broad Muslim world? Just look at newspapers in the Muslim world for your answer. They were the "lions of Islam" who fought superior forces and win with the help of Allah. Of course, Muslim countries don't like terrorism within their own countries -- that's un-Islamic -- but terrorism that helps destabilize foreign powers is awesome.
Pakistan is a prime example of that, which carefully distinguished the "good Taliban" (state supported operatives in Afghanistan) from the "bad Taliban" (fighters who decided it was easier to put down roots in Pakistan itself and let the Great Satan have Afghanistan for a few years). They do the same thing with terrorist groups who fight in Kashmir. You want to go to Kashmir and kill Indian soldiers? Allahu akbar, here's some guns! You want to stay here? Well you're misguided, you're not understanding Islam.
You misunderstand. People who argue that all Muslims are dangerous are puppets not of hidden powers, but of the very open rhetoric of muslim extremists.
Okay, I think "puppets" is the wrong word there. They are obviously not taking orders from the Muslim extremists.
I'd like you to actually point out where I give white supremacists a pass.
No, I said you WOULD NOT give white supremacists a free pass, because you can see that white supremacism is bad. You give Muslim extremists a pass, because you said "It pisses off every muslim who just wants to get on with their lives". That's wrong. You're justifying their emotion instead of recognizing it as a symptom of extremism itself. The people who get pissed off about a movie DO NOT just want to get on with their lives -- otherwise, they WOULD just get on with their lives. Billions of people do it every day, it's not hard.
These kinds of conflicts are by their very nature destroying the societies they happen in
The qualities that produce these conflicts are already in those societies. Isn't it better to keep them focused on each other rather than focused outwards? I don't believe that terrorism and Islamic radicalism would just die out if we closed our eyes and left them all alone.
Most of the people who perish in them don't hate you, and couldn't really care less about you.
The flip side is that most people couldn't really care less about them either.
The thing about people is even if they don't hate you personally and would in fact like you if they knew you, they can be awfully bad to you. That's the nature of war. When you learned about the world wars in school, I would almost guarantee that one of your teachers said "But what conflict does one German farmer have with a French farmer? Why should they be fighting so much?" or something to that effect. It's our nature.
It's no different than helping rebels defeat Gaddafi -- one group that hates us helps weaken another group that hates us. If managed correctly at least it's effective and fairly cheap.
And why is it despicable? It's not like it would be interfering with peaceful people who would rather be left alone. They invite this sort of attention on themselves.
If they were Islam's Terry Joneses, they would have found another film and given it publicity. Try again?
Seriously, what are you trying to say by equating Terry Jones or the mysterious Mr. Bacile with the Muslim lunatics who stormed an embassy and committed murder?That their extremists are much more extreme and dangerous than ours? That the word extremist has lost all meaning and soon we'll be calling toddlers the extremists of children?
That's an interesting article. This part is great: "Following the attack, a representative of the film's distributor, United International Pictures, said, "The opponents of the film have largely won. They have massacred the film's success, and they have scared the public." Jack Lang, France's Minister of Culture, went to the St.-Michel theater after the fire, and said, "Freedom of speech is threatened, and we must not be intimidated by such acts.""
Compare that to the US response to the Libya attacks! "We must not be intimidated by such acts" would have been awesome, but alas, it wasn't meant to be. Instead it's "We condemn all efforts to hurt your religious feelings." Wow, way to take a stand for freedom.
Slashdot Mirror
The people who will take to the streets or commit criminal acts are a tiny tiny sliver of the people who support what the protesters do. Only a few Christians actually bomb abortion clinics, but it would be lunacy to say that only a few Christians are anti-abortion.
There aren't many causes that get 20,000 people out protesting violently. That's the sense of scale you need to look at.
Do a search for "american cultural imperialism" and you'll see this isn't just a US-based right-wing idea. It's a pretty widely accepted thing. Liberals in the US are very pro-cultural-imperialism as well -- which is why there are movements HERE to influence laws about homosexuality in Uganda; and why activists HERE fight female circumcision in Africa. That's us trying to get our liberal-slanted cultural norms to win out over their cultural norms.
You're right that the left and right don't agree on the role of Islam in the culture wars. But I don't think you can say that the left doesn't see a culture war to begin with.
Also I don't think films like the one in question are intended to produce an open conflict. To me the purpose they serve is to force Muslims to confront themselves and their beliefs that lead to violent protests over silly and harmless images. I guarantee if every Muslim in the world sat down and watched a new film just like "Innocence of Muslims", the result wouldn't be world war, it would be a total cessation of protests about ANY religious matter after a few weeks. In reality the desensitization campaign can't be so concentrated.. it trickles in slowly. After enough years, maybe decades, I think it'll have the same effect.
I'm not focusing on the content of the speech, just the reactions from violent groups. You brought up the idea that if you give a speech with the expectation that it leads to violence, that makes you responsible. You didn't mention the content of the speech.
So now your idea includes not only whether there will be violence, but whether the message is "morally" responsible for the violence. Pro-gay, not responsible. Anti-Muslim, responsible. What about anti-white speech? If a black civil rights activists says America has a legacy of slavery and whites have a position of privilege due to that, well, that's insulting. He's saying white people have things they don't deserve. So now if a white power group goes around killing blacks, that civil rights speech becomes illegal? Or will you make an executive decision that anti-white speech is in the "not morally responsible" category, or that wasn't anti-white "enough" to be illegal? This is why strong protection of free speech is required, so that we don't have to judge the content to determine whether it's legal. Who makes the call? you?
Also, Muslims riot for many reasons. Possibly a pro-Christian film would do the trick.. IF they were exposed to it and whipped into a frenzy by the local imam. Certainly Christian proselytizing, which is often just pro-Christian speech that doesn't even mention Islam, is illegal in many Muslim countries. If the film were portrayed as a tool of proselytizing I'm sure you'd have no problem starting a riot.
What we do know is that their actions were damaging and there has been a loss of life. People died so now it's more like yelling fire in a theater and people get trampled to death and you want to claim free speech.
I assume you're talking about the Muslims who reported the movie and showed it to crowds and whipped them into a frenzy ready to kill. I agree what they did should be illegal and they bear much responsibility for what happened.
The point here is the film maker knew he was going to trigger violence. He was part of the scheme and did not seem to care who would get killed over it. His film is hate speech at least and treason at worst.
Lol what?? The film maker? The film.. maker. Not the guys who took the film and whipped up the crowds who otherwise would go through life blissfully unaware of Mohammed's many sins.
That makes no sense. It's like suing gun manufacturers for murders using their guns. And then knife manufacturers. And brick manufacturers. And trees. Your path is madness at best, treason at worst.
Yup a film is nothing but a product. A tool. A "hate" film can be educational. It can be used as an object of study. Or it can be used to inspire hate. That's what the Muslims did, and they are the guilty ones.
To carry on your hypothetical, if someone is known to be an unstable violent maniac who has known triggers that incite murderous rampages... don't they get committed to an institution and heavily medicated? If not then society at large bears the greatest part of the responsibility for that rampage.
Why is it painful to you to say "I don't believe unicorns exist" instead of "Unicorns DO NOT exist and you can't make me say that's a belief."
You obviously didn't bother searching. Just one of many many many examples: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5tqi84fJak
quote:
"Brothers in faith, the Al-Aqsa Mosque remains under oppressive occupation. The Jews continue to defile it with their filth. The only way to liberate it is through Jihad for the sake of Allah."
So.. yeah.
And personally I really appreciate things like that being available to view or read online even though I'm firmly against what they say. It's fascinating, and it's important to learn about your enemies is it not?
you are joking right? I havent seen anyone say this is a good movie, or that it is representitive of how we feel.
I think it's a good movie. It's representative of what I feel. Do a quick google search and you'll find millions of people who believe Mohammed was a child molester, womanizer, abuser, violent, etc. Is it really that shocking? Have you read the Koran and Hadith?
I laughed out loud when I read accounts of some of his revelations. Someone disagrees with or questions Mohammed.. he puts a hand to his head covering his eyes.. "Oh! Allah just spoke to me and it turns out I'm right, so do what I say. End of discussion."
I don't get the shock over this film from non-Muslims. It's like being shocked that atheists find the idea of God stupid and illogical and make up things like the "flying spaghetti monster" to mock religion... DUH. Seriously? You're shocked that some non-Muslims don't like Mohammed and focus on the worst qualities about him?
They didn't produce the film in a Libyan mosque, they were in sunny California. You didn't address my example of anti-gay activists. If anti-gay activists began threatening to kill gays whenever they felt offended by pro-gay-rights speech, then anybody who knows that and engages in pro-gay-rights speech is doing so expecting violence and is thus culpable? I don't think you really believe that since it gives so much moral power to the bad guys. But based on what you're saying I don't see how you distinguish between that example and this film.
Were the protesters of the Danish Mohammed cartoons protested the Danish support of oppressive regimes? Was the murder of Theo van Gogh actually a protest of Dutch imperialism?
I don't buy it. If what you say is true, why wait until there is an offensive movie or cartoon? Why not say "Hey guys, next Thursday, protest at the embassy. Bring your AK."
The protests had everything to do with the movie, it's the only thing that makes sense and matches past protests against similar material.
According to the tenets of Islam, Muslims, Jews, and Christians are all "people of the Book" and all equal in the eyes of Allah (well, maybe Muslims are more equal, but whatever).
Jews and Christians are in theory supposed to be protected and be allowed to live in peace *under Muslim rule*, or if there's an outstanding treaty with a non-Muslim nation. However, if a Jewish or Christian nation is seen as attacking Islam they are fair game. Part of the justification behind 9/11 in Islam is that America is at war with Islam, so Americans are fair game. It's really not much different than the US bombing Dresden or Hiroshima in WWII.
These killers were not true Muslims and I don't mean in the "No True Scotsman" way.
That's exactly what you mean isn't it? They self-identify as Muslims and are supported by a large number of other self-identifying Muslims. Who are you to say what a true Muslim is? Shouldn't you let the numbers speak for themselves? e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_attitudes_towards_terrorism
Where Islam failed was in failing to denounce this kind of behavior in a way that would leave no doubt in the minds of any future imitators and wannabes that mass murder is the work of Iblis
See there's the problem. They could have done that. You are *assuming* that the reason they didn't is because they simply failed to get that message out. It's more likely that they simply will not denounce that kind of behavior in the broad numbers you're talking about because they support it.
Why are you talking about reliable sources? That doesn't make sense. They didn't write a scholarly paper about Mohammed, they made a film that makes fun of him. They did a wonderful job and got the reaction they wanted. I'd say they are successful artists and provocateurs of change and enlightenment. After enough provocation and time Muslims will come to realize that they can't fight modernity. These efforts could lead to hugely positive changes for the Muslim world, far more important than simple political unrest like the Arab Spring. We're talking about changing their underlying culture, not swapping out one group of rulers for another.
Just because words lead to a fight doesn't mean they were fighting words. There are anti-gay activists who would be more than happy to outlaw any pro-gay speech on the basis that it makes them really mad and they might go kill a gay person because it's fighting words.
Why are the people who made the movie lunatics? They are provocative, not crazy.
I don't think it's sad that the demonstrations are proving the film makers right. The demonstrations are sad in and of themselves. The film makers are brave people who expose the true lunatics.
Oh and since I'm feeling particularly generous today, the word you were looking for is pederast (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pederasty). You're welcome, ass. You learned something new today!
Or, and this is just a thought, you could google the words you claim I'm using incorrectly and realize that I'm actually 100% correct, then subsequently go fuck yourself.
I googled it since you're too intellectually lazy to do so. "As a medical diagnosis, pedophilia, or paedophilia, is defined as a psychiatric disorder in persons who are 16 years of age or older typically characterized by a primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children."
Okay, so.. what's the average age of puberty in girls? http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/01/magazine/puberty-before-age-10-a-new-normal.html?pagewanted=all
In the late 1980s, Marcia Herman-Giddens, then a physician’s associate in the pediatric department of the Duke University Medical Center, started noticing that an awful lot of 8- and 9-year-olds in her clinic had sprouted pubic hair and breasts. The medical wisdom, at that time, based on a landmark 1960 study of institutionalized British children, was that puberty began, on average, for girls at age 11. But that was not what Herman-Giddens was seeing. So she started collecting data, eventually leading a study with the American Academy of Pediatrics that sampled 17,000 girls, finding that among white girls, the average age of breast budding was 9.96. Among black girls, it was 8.87.
Alrighty so what have we learned? Pedophiles have a primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children and female prepubescent children on average start puberty (not finish.. start) before age 10, though it was higher in the past.
So the question is was Poe a pedophile.
1. Did he have a primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children?
a. Was he interested in prepubescent children? It's possible that a 13 year old girl hadn't even started puberty (delayed onset puberty), but not likely. In a quick google search I didn't see any sources one way or the other, just that she was 13.
b. Was it primary or exclusive? No, his first relationship when he was 16 was to a 15 year old (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Elmira_Royster). He also had a relationship with a Mary Devereaux. I didn't find her age but the implication was she was an adult.
We don't have to go any further, the argument that Poe was a pedophile has already failed. You failed. You failed hard. You should go cry about your failure.
If you want a comparison with the US, it's like drug violence spilling over into the US. It's not directly tied to how the US works, but it isn't immune to it.
The difference, which is vital, is that the vast majority of Turks are in one or another Islamic sect, and Islam is a force in the government, whereas the vast majority of Americans are not in gangs and gangs are not a force in the government.
I agree that it's not directly tied to how the US works. I'd say it's not tied at all to how Turkey or the US work. It has nothing to do with the government, it's the people and the religion.
No argument. Not sure why you think though that that disqualifies Malaysia for being a working Islamic democracy.
What I responded to was your assertion that Turkey, Indonesia, and Malaysia are working "quite nicely", which is more qualified than just "working."
The institution of Sharia law as a fully-formed body of law is more worrying - but so far, it hasn't had a huge impact on overall stability.
You're right, and why should there be instability when a Muslim-majority country institutes Islamic law? That's hardly surprising. The question, again, is whether it's working "quite nicely" when minorities are being persecuted, churches being physically attacked or legally shut down, etc.
I mean, by your standards, the US isn't a functioning democracy.
Where do you get that impression? Even when you misunderstood me to mean that I didn't Turkey, Indonesia, and Malaysia are even functioning, how does that translate into the US not functioning? We don't have sharia law, we don't huge crowds of angry Christians burning Muslim neighborhoods and mosques... shoot, here when someone vandalizes a mosque (at night, with no injuries at all) it's decried as a "hate crime" and investigated by the FBI. How can you compare that to what happens in Muslim countries throughout the world?
"Islamic democracies" work quite nicely. Ask Turkey, Malaysia, Indonesia.
Doing a quick search reveals countless religious problems in Turkey. Even ignoring their historical problem with Kurds (who aren't much different than secular rebels), the Alawites fear for their safety and have been attacked: "As Syria War Roils, Unrest Among Sects Hits Turkey" http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/05/world/middleeast/turkish-alawites-fear-spillover-of-violence-from-syria.html?pagewanted=all
And there are countless small stories of religious persecution, things that would be classed as hate crimes in America, e.g. http://www.compassdirect.org/english/country/turkey/15153
Malaysia has a two-tier justice system, one for Muslims one for others, with a history of discrimination against non-Muslims: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/13/world/asia/13malay.html
Again, countless reports of smaller-scale incidents as well. I'm sure you remember when churches were attacked for using the word "allah", which Muslims wanted to keep associated with Islam only; it made international news. Yeah that was good old Malaysia. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-10961282
Look at this little gem from that article: "But some Muslim groups are suspicious of their motives, our correspondent says, saying the use of the word Allah is a ploy to encourage Muslims to convert to Christianity - something that is illegal in the country."
So apparently proselytizing is illegal in Malaysia. HMMMMMM I wonder if that also applies to Muslims encouraging Christians to convert? Nope didn't think so: http://www.prayway.com/unreached/countries/malaysia.html "Constitutional guarantees of religious freedom are under attack, as it is illegal to proselytize Muslims, while Muslims may convert whoever they like."
Indonesia... seriously... why would you even bring up Indonesia? Are you unaware of all the problems in Aceh? They've had tons of Islamic radicals, and in 2006 instituted sharia: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/01/world/asia/01iht-aceh.2356621.html?pagewanted=all
And predictably since then things have gotten worse with attacks on Christians: http://www.persecution.org/2012/06/20/hundreds-of-muslim-extremists-attack-christian-prayer-house-in-indonesia/
Do you honestly think they are working "quite nicely" in these Islamic strongholds? Your standards are too low.
Remind me to never let you anywhere near any minors.
Okay I'll remind you. Don't let me anywhere near minors. Because I'm allergic to coal dust. Oh whoops I used the word "minor" wrong and so what I said makes no sense at all, just like what you did with pedophile!
It's a real word with a real meaning, instead of mocking me you should learn the correct usage, accept that you were wrong, apologize for being an ass (for bonus points), and move on.
The same thing I think about the huge number of historians and writers who say Jesus/Buddha/other fictional deity was real - good for you, please don't murder me because I disagree.
I guess you don't care to share any of your reasoning. Okay then... good for you? Great contribution to the discussion.
And is it correct? Quite frankly, I find that reputation retarded.
I don't think it's retarded. I've heard quite convincing arguments about so called soft imperialism. And of course our actions in our "sphere of influence" are very protectionary. E.g. Cuban missile crisis versus us now wanting to install missile defense systems so close to Russia, China, Iran, etc.
That's why generalizations are dangerous: they are generally wrong, and lead you to respond incorrectly to political situations.
Calling America an imperialist country isn't a generalization, it's an analysis of the situation and a conclusion that you personally disagree with. In fact I explicitly said such a statement IS NOT a generalization -- nobody things that "most Americans personally engage in imperialism", like getting grants from a king or something. And nobody thinks typical Americans are going around the world raping and killing with impunity.
A nation's reputation is almost certainly not based on a generalization of its citizens.
I know where you're going, but this isn't logic class. If the argument is "All pit bulls are dangerous", then yes, it means that a harmless pitbull is actually not a pitbull.
Hmm, I'm a little confused. That's actually the opposite of what I was going for. I wanted to avoid that little logic puzzle. Bottom line is when people say "Islam is a violent religion" that is NOT equivalent to saying "therefore only violent Muslims are true Muslims." That's a logic puzzle which isn't characteristic of what people mean in ordinary speech.
And you don't see the danger of running with incorrect generalizations?
No because it's not entirely incorrect, especially from the point of view of Muslim fundamentalists -- they are actually 100% right. Their brand of Islam is not accepted or tolerated here, and most people would like to see it wiped out. Only the most limp-wristed college professors ever included the Taliban, for example, under the umbrella of acceptable multiculturalism. Now do you honestly think groups like the Taliban have no support in the broad Muslim world? Just look at newspapers in the Muslim world for your answer. They were the "lions of Islam" who fought superior forces and win with the help of Allah. Of course, Muslim countries don't like terrorism within their own countries -- that's un-Islamic -- but terrorism that helps destabilize foreign powers is awesome.
Pakistan is a prime example of that, which carefully distinguished the "good Taliban" (state supported operatives in Afghanistan) from the "bad Taliban" (fighters who decided it was easier to put down roots in Pakistan itself and let the Great Satan have Afghanistan for a few years). They do the same thing with terrorist groups who fight in Kashmir. You want to go to Kashmir and kill Indian soldiers? Allahu akbar, here's some guns! You want to stay here? Well you're misguided, you're not understanding Islam.
You misunderstand. People who argue that all Muslims are dangerous are puppets not of hidden powers, but of the very open rhetoric of muslim extremists.
Okay, I think "puppets" is the wrong word there. They are obviously not taking orders from the Muslim extremists.
I'd like you to actually point out where I give white supremacists a pass.
No, I said you WOULD NOT give white supremacists a free pass, because you can see that white supremacism is bad. You give Muslim extremists a pass, because you said "It pisses off every muslim who just wants to get on with their lives". That's wrong. You're justifying their emotion instead of recognizing it as a symptom of extremism itself. The people who get pissed off about a movie DO NOT just want to get on with their lives -- otherwise, they WOULD just get on with their lives. Billions of people do it every day, it's not hard.
They are just as extremist as white supre
These kinds of conflicts are by their very nature destroying the societies they happen in
The qualities that produce these conflicts are already in those societies. Isn't it better to keep them focused on each other rather than focused outwards? I don't believe that terrorism and Islamic radicalism would just die out if we closed our eyes and left them all alone.
Most of the people who perish in them don't hate you, and couldn't really care less about you.
The flip side is that most people couldn't really care less about them either.
The thing about people is even if they don't hate you personally and would in fact like you if they knew you, they can be awfully bad to you. That's the nature of war. When you learned about the world wars in school, I would almost guarantee that one of your teachers said "But what conflict does one German farmer have with a French farmer? Why should they be fighting so much?" or something to that effect. It's our nature.
It's no different than helping rebels defeat Gaddafi -- one group that hates us helps weaken another group that hates us. If managed correctly at least it's effective and fairly cheap.
And why is it despicable? It's not like it would be interfering with peaceful people who would rather be left alone. They invite this sort of attention on themselves.
If they were Islam's Terry Joneses, they would have found another film and given it publicity. Try again?
Seriously, what are you trying to say by equating Terry Jones or the mysterious Mr. Bacile with the Muslim lunatics who stormed an embassy and committed murder?That their extremists are much more extreme and dangerous than ours? That the word extremist has lost all meaning and soon we'll be calling toddlers the extremists of children?
Some people think the Koran is all there is to it, but the Hadith are a very important component to Islam.
That's an interesting article. This part is great: "Following the attack, a representative of the film's distributor, United International Pictures, said, "The opponents of the film have largely won. They have massacred the film's success, and they have scared the public." Jack Lang, France's Minister of Culture, went to the St.-Michel theater after the fire, and said, "Freedom of speech is threatened, and we must not be intimidated by such acts.""
Compare that to the US response to the Libya attacks! "We must not be intimidated by such acts" would have been awesome, but alas, it wasn't meant to be. Instead it's "We condemn all efforts to hurt your religious feelings." Wow, way to take a stand for freedom.