Yes, the shooters were definitely wrong. Nothing done by Geller or anyone else can justify what they did. I hope nobody would believe that is okay. But there is a problem when people somehow hold up a bigots expression of bigotry as a great example of free speech. It isn't. I believe it absolutely falls into the realm of free speech and should be protected. However, it isn't a shining example of the good that comes from free speech. It's no different than Klan marches and rallies being protected by free speech. They should be, but that doesn't mean every time there is a Klan march people should proudly show it off as feather in the cap of free speech and praise the Klan for doing their part to uphold free speech. If you or anyone else wants to admire Geller or any other bigot you choose, you are free to do that, but don't hide behind the guise of some great service being done for free speech because bigots get to preach their bigotry. If you aren't doing that then great, but it seems like plenty of folks are doing exactly that.
I wonder if the cop that got shot has a case to sue Geller for his injuries. Security guards have sued for such things before, though I don't know how often they win. And, I'm sure their lawyers thought very specifically about terrorist attacks when they wrote their contracts. But you can't always contract yourself out of liability.
http://www.wfaa.com/story/news/loca...ked-while-leaving-richardson-mosque/26911249/ An elderly man was attacked leaving the mosque yesterday night. This mosque is about 10 minutes away from the Garland events center. No evidence as of yet on the motivation of the attackers but considering the recent events, I am leaning towards a targeted attack.
Twist! (maybe an old theory, I didn't read the entire thread): The security guard is an FBI agent, and Geller was a eager pawn in a honey-pot sting operation. Item 1: dude killed a guy with an assault rifle using a service pistol. how many ISD security guards can do that? Item 2: The FBI were aware of, and were tracking the shooter for a long time. Item 3: There was a small army of heavily armed dudes inside, that "prepared for months." That is significant spend.
Well, if I was going down that road, I'd give the guy a more capable gun and then change the facts in the police report and the press releases to say it was a service pistol.
That's exactly what a lot of people here are doing. Even better they are asking if the cop should sue the rape victim for wearing sexy clothes because they got hurt while trying to stop the rapist..... It's pretty disgusting, but not terribly surprising.
I have a real problem with this comparison. I think it completely misunderstands the issue of why you don't "blame the rape victim". Its really poorly thought out, and I'm surprised DonnyMost goes there. A rape victim has suffered a terrible trauma that is both physical and intensely emotional. To question why she was in the situation she was in, etc., is insensitive and really doing more emotional harm to her. It is essentially exacerbating the effects of the crime. That's why you don't it. It has nothing to do with the actual facts of the matter that led to the crime in the first place. Sometimes things are true, but for reasons of compassion and not doing harm you just don't say it. It is totally confusing the issue to argue that appropriateness of one's decision changes depending on whether they end up being victimized over it as a result. Beyond this, the act of dressing in sexy attire to be more attractive among (presumably) mature people and purposely trying to be disrespectful aren't the same thing.
No, the reason you don't blame a rape victim who was wearing sexy clothes is because there is nothing that justifies rape.....just like there's nothing that justifies terrorism. The people in the art gallery didn't "have it coming" any more than the rape victim "has it coming". The analogy is on point actually. Those in the art gallery weren't hurting anyone, so it's hard to say their actions were inappropriate. Just because those actions go against the views of a religion doesn't change that....if it did it would justify terrorist attacks on Jack in the Box for selling bacon cheeseburgers.
I don't think anyone is saying it is okay, but there is a subtle inference that doing something completely legal, but offensive to someone, in some way erodes the blame. That is not right. Great example of free speech? Who is doing that? Free speech is neutral. A shining example of the good that comes from free speech is subjective. If you mean that you would not attend the event or do not agree with her, that is understandable but irrelevant to the issue of free speech. Further, it isn't really any different than saying...... "Well no one thinks she deserved to be raped, but I don't like that short dress she wore." Huh? Who is showing it off? There is value in an individual fighting for the principle of free speech. An example being Larry Flynt. Many of his believes were not popular, and many of the things he believes in and values are not held in high esteem by people. However, his fight to protect free speech, a by product of actions is admirable. Having said that, who admired Geller? Who exactly?
Honestly, the comparison to a rape victim isn't a very strong one. I don't know why people are patting themselves on the back for drawing a false equivalency. Dressing provocatively is perhaps a passive tantalization aimed at everybody in general. Mocking the prophet is an active, focused incitement of a particular group of people designed to cause a reaction. If you want to stick with the rape equivalency, you'd have to performing a lap-dance and even then I think it fails as a comparison since you can't lap-dance a million anonymous strangers at once.
Again, you are missing the point, dressing provocatively doesn't justify rape any more than "mocking the prophet" justifies murder or terrorism. You blame the rapist for their actions, you blame the terrorist for their actions, you don't blame the victims or intended victims.
I wish we'd stop comparing people whose goal was to piss people off to those who have penises forced up their vaginas, mouths or anuses, however undeserving they were of this outcome. Now, find me a rape victim who taunts rapists before they're raped and the analogy would make a little more sense. Never mind the fact that rape typically isn't about what the person wears or more rooted in someone wanting power over someone else.
No, it is a strong comparison. They did not go to a Mosque or to someones home and have their presentation. If you want to go down this road, then it is equivalent to saying "Well she was raped and that is wrong, but she was a stripper."
Whether or not the victim in this case exercised good judgment or did something inappropriate has no bearing on whether the rape is justified. The rape is not justified, period. It is frankly bizarre that you think it could be somehow justified if the victim had done something wrong. And it is causally backwards and logically nonsensical to assert that a person could not have done something wrong if as a result a terrible crime was committed against them. So your entire premise here simply doesn't work.
Rape victims don't have intentions to get raped... And rapist don't commit rape because they believe their religion is being defiled. Also way more women (and children) get raped and or sexually assaulted than extremist flipping out over cartoons... It's embarrassing to even compare the two and your mother's would be ashamed of you.
I don't think you are following along because this post was "logically nonsensical". Nothing justifies rape, nothing justifies terrorism. You don't blame a rape victim for the clothes they wear or even for flirting with the rapist. You don't blame a victim of terrorism or an intended victim of terrorism because they held an art show. It's really not that hard to understand. You might think the intended victims in this case are dicks, and I'd probably agree with that, but there's no justification for terrorism. None. Placing blame on the intended victims for their actions....which didn't harm anyone, is justifying terrorism just the same as placing blame on a rape victim for the clothes she was wearing or the part of town she decided to go for a walk would be justifying the rape. Drawing pictures of Mohammed is not something that is wrong even if some think it is. Dickish? Sure. Wrong? No.
There's no need to do the rape analogy. People keep writing that they're not siding with the shooters (terrorist/attempted murderers/whatever), but that it's immoral/irrational/Klan like for this group lead by a hateful leader to put on an art exhibit. I think I can see the pov that a rape analogy could be a logical fallacy. I could also see the pov that attacking the leader as hateful is also misplaced. If the group took these drawings and displayed them outside a Mosque and someone got shot at, then 1) they'd be charged with some sort of trespassing, and 2) the shooters would still be charged because even though offensive material was put in their faces, it's illegal and against the norms of our society. But that's not what happened. Sure, the norms of our society are changing and we are being more culturally sensitive. People get PR backlash all the time because of the stuff they put on social media. But for those who argue (and there's been at least one in here) that this exhibit shouldn't have occurred bc it offends people and that's not how we live....well, that's taking it too far. I find the threat of violence offensive, but that shouldn't be the reason why the act of shooting people should be stopped. It takes two sides to be offended. And when one side is having an art gallery not in the middle of a Mosque, then it's the criminals who are trying to impose their principles of justice against American norms. Con Law scholars will tell you that protected free speech is conditional and limited much more than the fire in the crowded theater scenario. There are procedures and rules, but when those are all met, then it doesn't matter the content in the eyes of the law. And it shouldn't matter in the eyes of those who believe in the American values. Those dummies can show whatever they want in an approved art exhibit. Angry people can be angry in response to that. Just do it the American way and legally protest the exhibit at an approved distance and you won't be arrested. Or better yet, show outrage on twitter and someone will get fired. There is way too much condemnation towards the idiots who put on the gallery when they violated no law, and way too much moral consideration given towards the repercussions from idiots who do not abide by our laws.
LoL. Also, I think everyone here is probably extra hungover and ornery today because of the game last night, so we should probably just chill lout for awhile.
