Cartoon removed 2 yrs from air date after fear muslims would attack

I agree too for what you stated above and for what is stated in Quran

"you do not control them",

sometimes anti-religious propagandas works this way

Like what happen to this guy :Arnoud Van Doon. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnoud_van_Doorn

 

I fully agree.

Well, a statement like "A increased the likelihood of B" is in itself simply a factual claim -- you can deny the claim based on empirical evidence, but whether its true or not does not depend on moral arguments. I think what you mean here is that going from "increase the likelihood of B" to "being morally responsible for B" is an invalid leap to make when talking about free speech, with the exception being free speech made with the intention of it leading to B. Fine, that's a perfectly valid position to have.

My initial question, which you said didn't matter, was asking what aggressive measures were taken by the so-called hate preachers. You are now saying the hate preacher (the "lobbyist" in this case) should be held morally accountible for making threats and trying to intimidate others into silence. I agree! But, you are by your own admission basing this not on the facts that have come to light in this instance, but rather on a historical record of Muslims making violent threats.

What is still unclear is whether you believe this historical record proves that in this case the lobbyist intended for intimidation by threat of violence, or that we should treat him as if he did because he happens to also be an angry Muslim. The latter, of course, would essentially be a "guilt by association" argument which I can't take seriously. I'll assume, therefore, that you believe the lobbyist who initially tweeted about this wanted the animation studio to be intimidated by a threat of violence, and it is for this reason that he should be admonished. Fair enough. If that's what you believe about him, then I can understand why you'd take exception to his tweets.

One final comment: Going one step further, if it so happened that people from the animation studio were targeted and killed, is it automatically the case that this Muslim tweeter bares some responsibility for that? Going by your argment, the answer is yes if that outcome is what he had intended and hoped for. If, on the other hand, he didn't want them to be physical harmed, but rather he just wanted them to be intimidated (by threat of violence) into making a public apology, then your argument implies that he is morally responsible for impinging on their free speech rights via coercion, but not for the physical attack itself.

 

Forget the Muslims

it’s Tik Tok Americans with no sense of humor and low vitamin d levels