This thread has been almost entirely about the potential victim. Zimmerman thread was full of gun law discussion(stand your ground). Michael brown was full of law enforcement reform (body cameras). This thread is not about anti terrorism efforts or reduction of muslim terrorists, but about why we should limit free speech and degrees of how bad it is morally. Or how big of a bigot the targets were. So I completely disagree this thread is the same.
Except that the basis of determining whether it was self-defense, where there weren't witnesses or a lot of forensic evidence the background of the victim / suspects was looked at. The reason why Trayvon Martin's background was brought up was to show that he wasn't the angelic kid that had been portrayed but a surly drug using teenager who likely would assault someone. The flip side was bringing up George Zimmerman's background as a spouse beating wannabe cop to combat the image that he was a responsible neighborhood watch. The background of Michael Brown was very important to the argument that he wasn't the victim but Officer Wilson was. Showing that shortly before his death Brown had robbed and assaulted a shopkeeper greatly undermined the idea that he was a victim of an over zealous LEO. In all of these cases the background of the individuals involved, victim and perpetrator, were very critical in shaping the narrative of what happened.
Are we reading the same thread? Where has anyone said that free speech is morally bad and should be limited? I honestly don't even know what there is to debate about the actual terrorist act itself, everyone outside of a few nut jobs here and there would agree that the act of showing up to an event to kill people you disagree with is wrong. Would you prefer if everyone in this thread just condemned the terrorists and said nothing else?
I haven't read through this thread so I can't say how much or how little her background has been discussed. I agree that anti-terrorism efforts and free speech are important elements. As I stated in other threads where I've argued against laws limiting the Westboro Baptists rights to protest we need to protect free speech even when it is considered offensive. That Gellar might or might not be a bigot doesn't limit whether she should be able to practice free speech and assembly. She clearly should. That doesn't mean that her background is beyond discussion. Her background and why she was doing this event is an important part of understanding the what happened. I don't know what other's points are but I think we can certainly say that she didn't deserve to be attacked and that free speech should be protected while also wanting to look more into her background.
That woman seems nuttier than squirrel poop. Two religious lunatics arguing. Great ratings for Fox I'm sure.
Just calling a spade a spade. But you won't see a meltdown from me where I tell someone to go to hell, like Hangout Boy did.
I stand by my initial reaction (which a couple flamed me for). She was asking to be attacked. Her entire relevance is based on Muslim extremists. She spent as much on the award (for "First Amendment" purposes) as her security detail. I don't think anyone defended the two extremists who were killed. Regardless, this woman is a net negative to the human race.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p>??!!! The "contest left two dead"???? <a href="https://t.co/77HQlpe3T3" title="https://twitter.com/ap/status/596465718297829376">twitter.com/ap/status/5964…</a></p>— Jake Tapper (@jaketapper) <a href="https://twitter.com/jaketapper/status/596507559990849536" data-datetime="2015-05-00T02:50:59+00:00">May 0, 2015</a></blockquote> <script src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">PHOTO: Pamela Geller at AP headquarters, where she said she had no regrets over TX cartoon contest that left 2 dead: <a href="http://t.co/cELdeaeqGd">http://t.co/cELdeaeqGd</a></p>— The Associated Press (@AP) <a href="https://twitter.com/AP/status/596465718297829376">May 8, 2015</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
I don't think it's the same he is only pointing out the fallacy in saying you can't use the intended victim's character or background in judging the perp. In Zimmerman, they looked into Martin's behavior at school. How does that justify murder? In rape cases, they often look at the victims promiscuousness. Why should that matter? But they do. So why is it such a stretch to say you can't look at Geller's character as well? Is the victim off limits or not? Why is it ok in some cases and not others? Just be consistent and stop rationalizing.
The full blame is on the two dead terrorists. Period, end of story. Some of you need to stop trying to rationalize this incident of violence. Cartoons do not merit violence period.
It's not classy to misquote people. Oh, I forgot who I am speaking to. No, you won't meltdown. Your insanity is in the joy you get in trying to get people to meltdown. To embarrass people and attack them. You truly get joy out of taking your anger out on those you do not like. It would not surprise me if you were as physically abusive as you were verbally abusive.
