Good tactic. You can't refute the points made, so just make more personal attacks on the poster. Your own intolerance has been exposed in this thread, and now you are coming back in, not to debate but pretend like something isn't true by issuing insults. If you disagree or find something I posted to be inaccurate then feel free to try and present information that can dispute it. If not then stop wasting space. Lumping together murderers and protestors doesn't prove anything except that there are murderers and protestors. Nothing links them.
Nothing links them? You are wrong (as usual). What do they have in common? They both call themselves Muslims and they both say their action is motivated by their anger about a statement made by the pope.
Thank you for making my point. Because on the large scale they are muslim you link them all together. You have made my point perfectly. It is attitudes like this which are only able to see things in large broad strokes and not discern between the vast majority and the few. Despite the fact that I was trying to point out that people unjustly link them based on broad strokes, you have come right out and said that you do yourself. Let me give you another example. Let's look at the civil rights movement. People burned and looted in Detroit and Watts. Others marched peacefully(at least on the protestors parts) in Alabama. Both were groups lead largely by African Americans, both were acting out and angry based on injustices perpetrated upon them. Yet those that burned and looted certainly shouldn't have impuned the larger majority that protested or didnt' protest at all without resorting to violence. But using your flimsy logic the groups are connected and one and the same. Your inability to discern seperate things as seperate is amazing.
So abortion protestors and the nuts that blew up abortion clinics are both christian so therefore its ok to lump them together and make ridiculous generalizations.
The difference is that no injustice was perpetrated by the pope upon any of the Muslim protesters. Plus, burning pope figures, is not peaceful protest. And a menacing, screaming demeanor is not peaceful protest. It carries a threat of violence - even though there was objectively no reasonable cause for protest. And that is what you - perhaps excused by limited intellectual capacity? - do not understand - or do not want to understand. That is incorrect. I never said that they are completely one and the same - those who act violently take the craziness a step further. What I am saying is that there are several things the protesters have in common: 1) They are Muslims and, if they take to the streets with a threatening, menacing demeanor, often screaming or waving fists - or even worse, burning crosses, pope figures, etc. - they are completely intolerant of any actual or perceived criticism of their religion. Do you see large numbers of Catholics on demonstrations against the Muslim leader who ludicrously compared the pope with Hitler and Mussolini, screaming against that Muslim leader, waving fists, or even burning Muslim symbols? No, you don't. 2) They have no just cause for their protests. The speech by the pope - and again, I disagree with this guy on many issues - is absolutely no reason to march on the streets in a menacing, angry manner. They may have a right to protest whatever they want, but what I am saying is that they are wrong on the merits - and the fact that they march in the street in a menacing, threatening fashion based on these comments by the pope shows that they have an extremely low tolerance level for anything that is said about their religion. At the same time, they don't seem to have a problem with demeaning the pope by disrespectfully screaming at and about him in anger, who, for practicing catholics, is the highest living authority within their religion. That shows that they would not even dream of reciprocating with the same level of respect they demand for themselves. The murders and the attacks on churches and the death threats against the pope are just the tip of the iceberg - but what the supposedly "peaceful" protesters (I don't view people with a screaming, menacing demeanor who are waving their fists as "peaceful") and those who go completely over the top by murdering a nun, attacking churches and making death threats have in common is that they all act based on a wrong perception of having been offended that takes its roots in a form of intolerance they all share. The degree to which the intolerance manifests itself in violence is different. However, religious intolerance and unjustified anger is both behind the protests as well as the over-the-top violence - and this is something both the menacing Muslim protesters and those Islamists who actually become violent share. The difference to the civil rights protesters you mention is that the civil rights protesters actually had a just cause, and would have had a reason to be angry. Yet, many chose the form of peaceful, non-menacing protest. Those are the ones who I respect the most.
See my post above. They have things in common (same cause, same religious motivation), but they are not one and the same, just as the violent Muslim extremists and the non-violent Muslim protesters are not one and the same. The difference is in how far they would go to push their agenda through, but they do share the same or a similar cause. And I am not going to get side-tracked to the abortion issue, but the "non-violent" Muslim protesters who do demonstrate in a menacing fashion and those islamist extremists who kill people are both motivated by religious intolerance. There is obviously still a huge difference between protesting (even in a menacing fashion) and killing someone, but intolerance is behind both actions.
This is entirely arbitrary. Look, they were insulted by what the pope said. I wouldn't protest if I were in their situation but I'm not. They take this very seriously and as long as they are peacefully protesting, it shouldn't be a big deal. You say they have no reasonable justification to protest but that is completely subjective. I say that abortion protestors have no justification or that gay marriage protestors have no justification. Anyone can hold a political belief that disagrees with you and yes they have a right to disagree. America generally suffers from an ethnocentrism issue but your posts seem to really bring that out. This is absurd. At an anti-abortion rally in Austin, I saw people declaring that anyone who supports abortion was genocidal and that I was going to hell for even considering abortion to be ok. There were people making all sorts of menacing comments about religion and genocide and how we were complicit with a silent holocaust of fetuses. These comments don't seem to be a big deal to you, but if some Muslims scream death to America and wave a few fists then it's wrong. THEY ARE ANGRY and as such will act like it. But as long as they aren't engaging in violence you have no argument. And don't make the reciprocal argument about Christianity and Islam. I've made this point earlier. The Islamic world's social and cultural development has been r****ded by a variety of factors stemming from oil money to American backing of regimes that shouldn't be there. But either way, that's not an argument. Besides, the abortion analogy above still applies. They throw out holocaust references and genocide claims so it really isn't too different. Fine they have a low tolerance and I agree that its silly. But that still doesn't make their protests "wrong." Part of the idea of free speech is that anyone is entitled to assemble and demonstrate as long as they remain peaceful. Look, as long as these protestors don't kill anyone, you've got no right to say that they are "wrong" or that they shouldn't be "protesting." You can have the opinion that what they are doing is silly but that's as far as it goes. It is an opinion about what they are doing, not an opinion that determines if they can do anything at all. And free speech is about extending protection to those that disagree with you. We were pointing fire hydrants and sending attack dogs at civil rights protestors. At the time, they were percieved as unnecessary protests and that they were "wrong" by the majority of Americans. And while I'm not saying that these protests are akin to the civil rights protests, I am saying that they still deserve their right to speak, even if I disagree with it. Besides in a world of true free speech, the marketplace of ideas generated by free speech would allow more "enlightened" views like yours to dominate and eventually persuade those that disagree. Honestly, I have no idea what a peaceful protest is under your definition. If you disagree with something, you're probably going to be pretty passionate about it. That's why they are out marching. They are very passionate about what they believe in and will yell and scream to get their point across. That's sort of a common theme with all protests so stop pretending like this is unique to these protests in the Middle East. You just showed your true colors in that last paragraph. So your opinion as to what is right and wrong legitimates certain protests. That's certainly the same logic that clowns like Governor George Wallace used when he repeatedly shut down civil rights protests. According to him, those didn't have a "legitimate cause" either. Saying that protests with "legitimate cause" are ok but others aren't is the very definition of suppression of speech that our founders spoke out against. NO AUTHORITY can determine what can and can't be said. If you aren't engaging or promoting violence, then you can speak. I think slippery slope arguments are overused and as a result have a lot less credibility, but your logic does set up a slippery slope. Also, the fact that "non-menacing" protests, (whatever that means) are ok is another example of this. So not only can only "certain" groups protest, but they must do so in a "non-menacing" manner. Throw in more vague terms so we can shrink the pool of protestors to virtually nothing.
Who is defending the killing of the nun? That is not a form of protest. That is a violent crime. Nobody has argued otherwise. Are you making the same overly broad generalization of equating protestors with the different group of people and individuals who are murdering and committing crimes? Are you tying those two seperate groups together?
geeimsobored actually had a far better analogy than I did when he mentioned the abortion protestors, but the point is the same. waving fists and burning effigies is certainly a form of peaceful protest and demonstration. You live in some kind of strange world where protests have to hold library whispers and be devoid anger and passion. Why protest if they aren't angry? There is nothing wrong with protesting waving fists and screaming. we need more of it. I don't think we need more of it in regards to what the Pope said because that was missing the point of the Pontiff's message. But in general we need more of it. All of the things the protestors are doing in their anger is fine and legitimate protest. To pretend that protestors should observe the same code of conduct as visitors to a library is just silly. Again geeimsobored did a better job than I could of pointing our your intolerance in your last paragraph. If you don't approve of the reason for the protests then they aren't justified. Your reasoning, and lack of tolerance, quickness to over-generalize, or inability not to, has been illustrated by your posts in this thread on multiple occasions. As I have said before... I think the Muslim protestors are missing the point by taking the one section of the speech out of context. But as geeimsobored pointed out, in a society or mindset that values freedom, they are free to protest if they are offended. Even if you and I disagree with their rationale. I don't condone violence from anyone against nuns, churches, or anything at all like that. I am able to make the distinction between that, and protests which are not violent.
That's an interesting analysis, since I am not American and don't live in America. It's about as accurate as the rest of your post. You pulled that out of your ass. This is the first time such comments were mentioned on this thread, so how do you genius derive the analysis that they don't seem like a big deal to me? I think comments which compare abortion to the holocaust are idiotic. Yes, it is very wrong. And you are not going to change that by trying to play it down by saying they "wave a few fists". But some do - and this was very predictable. And even if there was no direct violence carried out, my argument, again, is that the menacing demeanor is a display of intolerance. Nice try to blame Islamic extremism on America. And again, you pulled it out of your ass that I would not disagree with the holocaust references. So you are trying to confirm your argument by using something I never said or even had an opportunity to comment on because it only existed in your head. Funny way of debating. In my book, it does. Then let's see someone using that right to free speech in Saudi-Arabia by organizing a demonstration against the Muslim leader who compared the pope to Mussolini and Hitler, with a group of people waving their fists in a menacing fashion. Good luck to those people. Ah, interesting. They have the right to wave their fists, make threats, deride a religious leader who hasn't done anything wrong, "as long as they don't kill anyone" - this is a very interesting piece of work there, buddy. But I, on the other hand, "have no right to say they are "wrong"". Hmm... interesting picture there. Maybe you should think before you type. What the hell is this supposed to even mean? Explain this to the Mullahs in Iran and to the rulers in Syria. Thank you. Oh - and actually - explain it to those protesters - because even if the pope had himself criticized Islam (which he didn't), aren't they just trying to deny his right to free speech by their protests? Where did I ever say that they don't deserve their right to speak? They can speak all they want, but I can speak, too, and I am using my right to free speech to say that these people are wrong, and that they are intolerant (and I am not even threatening anyone or waving my fist or screaming or making menacing grimaces while doing so...). Right. But didn't you say above: Oh, let's go on: Unfortunately, that is blatantly obvious from your post. No you moron, my opinion doesn't legitimate certain protests, it is what it is: my opinion about these protests. And I do state it. Stop being ridiculous and comparing civil rights protests to these angry and hateful protests against the leader of another religion who has done nothing wrong. I don't suppress speech, I state my opinion. Interesting statement, especially contrasted with this once more: Classic case of "self-pwned". Dude, stop talking like I was a governmental authority trying to prevent these guys from protesting. You are completely confused. I am stating my opinion about their protests, I am not some governmental authority denying them the right to march.
Interesting debate here. But I'll take some issue with this. It's not about "freedom to protest", it's about a religious ideology that promotes violence for the most trivial of reasons. The pope citing a centuries old document is not anti-islam. Making a cartoon is not anti-islam. Being secularist is not anti-islam. These religious whackos, like any other religious whackos, are mad that everyone else is not like them. Not thinking like them, not acting like them, not ignorant like them. However in this case, it's not people chanting some stupid anti-gay slogan in the parking lot (not to trivialize that discrimination by any means) it's someone promising war and death for a ****ing citation made by an old fart. A little bit of perspective may be in order... Lest some moron try to claim i'm anti-islam: All religions promote fundamentalism, just like all religions are illogical. Fundamentalism, at it's heart, is just the religious version of collectivism, and an inevitability in a system that promotes identity by birth, belief in the unproven, and adherance to the group. I'm all for ganging up on Jackie - but defense of this extreme form of ignorance is a little too much.
Yes, thank goodness you are powerless to suppress free speech. But your own posts show that you support the suppression of free speech. Now that your own statements have been used to illustrate this, it makes the following even more ironic.
Yeah right. And I said this where? You are confused. Whether the protest is legitimate or not is to be judged on the merits, and my opinion is that there is no just cause behind their protest. Yes, they do have a right to protest (even though, in most Islamic states, they only have it as long as they don't "offend Islam", which is why I say that their leaders demand a level of freedom for themselves in other countries and a level of respect and tolerance that they would never even dream of reciprocating). But their protest does not have a just cause in my opinion, when they wave their fists in anger because of some harmless and actually well-meaning speech of the pope. Again, you pulled that silly idea out of your ass. You need to distinguish between "they aren't reasonable/they are a display of intolerance" (which is what I am saying) and "they should be prohibited" (which is not what I am saying, but what you keep trying to pretend I am saying). At least one thing you got right. You mean a society like Iran or Syria? Get this into your head: I am not trying (nor am I in a position to) deny them their right to protest. I am simply stating my opinion that their protest is a ridiculous display of intolerance. You keep restating some of your (correct) beliefs about the necessity of the civil right to protest in the US, which, however, have nothing to do with this thread. First of all, the protests are not taking place in the US, secondly, again, I am not denying their right to protest, I am simply saying that their protest is idiotic and a display of intolerance and ignorance.
Only in your confused imagination. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, I would very much welcome it if everyone had as much right to free speech in Iran, Syria, Saudi-Arabia as people do in the US and Europe.
I'm too ADD to have enough patience to respond to each point and frankly no one is convincing anyone else on this issue.. I will say a few things though... I suppose I'm unclear as to your main point. If you are saying that it is silly to protest this quote, then I am in agreement. There's no reason to go out into the streets and engage in all of this hooplah and certainly there's no reason to engage in violence over this issue. However, I believe your initial point was a justification in grouping the protestors and those who supported violence into one group. If that's the case, then I still disagree. The whole point of my post was to create a distinction. Violence is always bad in these types of situations (ala abortion clinic bombers) but peaceful protests are ok even if I disagree with them. (ala abortion protestors) The whole point of the abortion issue is to say that the average person doesn't group abortion protestors and clinic bombers, so there's no reason to group the radicals who engaged in violence with peaceful protestors. Later on you make statements about how the protests in the Middle East are unique because they have an "angry demeanor" and a violent aura of some sorts. My argument was that this is no different from the average abortion protest that makes equally outlandish statements in regards to genocide and the holocaust. Additionally, at the end you made a statement about how you respected "non-menacing protest" which is 1) arbitrary and 2) pretty rare. I just find that you have created a somewhat illusory standard regarding protest that you find acceptable and protest that you find as unacceptable. If you are just criticizing the message of these protests, then I've got no beef with your argument and probably agree with you. But if you are attempting to justify a sort of global critique of both violent and peaceful protestors then I think you are mistaken. My argument was that you can critique the message of the protest but you can't critique whether the protest itself is acceptable or not. All peaceful protest is acceptable, regardless of their political affiliation, and that attempting to create distinctions between what is ok and not ok with regards to peaceful protest was contrary to the principles of free speech this country was built upon.
You really are too ADD. Let me restate one more time: The obvious difference is in how far they go and in how far the ignorance and intolerance manifests itself in violence. Someone can be intolerant as much as he wants, as long as it doesn't manifest itself in violence, he, on an individual level, has not committed a violent crime. However, the underlying intolerance is shared by both the protesters and the violent extremists, if they make a big fuss about a harmless speech of the leader of another religion. So they are not the same insofar as they don't go equally far, but their motivation is similar. I didn't say that the angry demeanor and violent aura is unique to these protests. I said that I think that both is completely out of line given the "reason" for the protests. That's my opinion. For me, people like Ghandi and Martin Luther King are heroes. People who respond to injustice with violence or other injustice are not. Yes, I do criticize the message of the protests, but, because I criticize the message, I also criticize the degree of anger that is displayed. I say that there is not even a reason to protest, which makes the anger and hate displayed even more shocking. You are making the same mistake as FranchiseBlade. I have to quote myself:
I'm not sure I totally grasp what you are saying. I agree with you that it isn't reasonable for the protestors to be that upset over what the Pope said. The Pope was foolish for using the quote and source he did, but that small offense certainly doesn't seem to merit the level of outrage expressed. Yet, I'm not sure that it is anybody's place but those that feel the outrage to decide whether it merits protest or not. You and I think it is overboard, but shouldn't they be allowed to protest? I think to a degree it is about their freedom to express themselves. Look at SJC's reasoning on why they can't have angry protests. What a silly reason to limit freedom. Beyond that what is truly asinine is SJC's willingness to paint those who haven't done any violence with the same brush he would paint those who have. The only real connection is their religion and that they are both upset.
