Here would be a more comparable analogy IMO: There is a strongly conservative community who generally find the female form offensive. And a few among them are violent thugs who would resort to violently assaulting women simply for dressing in a sexually provocative manner. A group of female activists, in (rightful) disgust of these attitudes, decide to stage a protest. They very publicly bare themselves towards this community. In retaliation, they are badly assaulted. (1) Was the crime committed against them justified? Absolutely not. (2) Was the protest itself appropriate and justified? Maybe, maybe not. (3) Does answer "No" to question (2) retroactively justify the crime committed against them? Obviously not. (4) Does the appropriateness of the protest depend at all on the fact that they were assaulted? No. (Answers to (3) and (4) are simply a consequence of the fact that (1) and (2) are independent of eachother.) (5) If answering "No" to questions (1) and (2), does that mean there is shared moral responsibility for the assault? This is actually a tricky question, and honestly I don't have an answer which I'm entirely comfortable with. It would seem obvious that people are at least in part morally responsible for the predictable consequences of their actions. But does does it make sense to say someone is morally responsible for their own victimization? I don't think so. But I think they do share some responsibility for how their decisions impact others.
The funny thing is, all the terrorists had to do to win was ignore the exhibit. Then the organizers would have spent who knows how much money on something no one would have heard about. Well trolled Ms. Geller.
Of course. I agreed you don't blame victims out of compassion. But whether or not these victims did something wrong themselves is entirely a separate issue. This is what I'm trying to convey to you. You seem to be thinking that by recognizing they did something wrong that somehow "justifies" the crime committed against them, and hence you don't do it. But we've already agreed it couldn't possible justify it, because (as stated) nothing justifies rape, nothing justifies terrorism.
It's hard to argue with a hypothetical that just wouldn't happen here. There is no equivalent that is prevalent among small groups of followers of other religions. Can you link to a story where something similar happened like the one you are using here?
I don't completely agree with your analogy but it is close enough. Something else to consider, is that supposedly there was a speaker present that was on the enemy list of extremists. It is possible that was their primary motivation for attempting to shoot and kill those present.
It has nothing to do with compassion, you don't blame them because it's not their fault. Wearing revealing clothing isn't "wrong", holding an art exhibit isn't "wrong". I honestly hope you are trolling and that you don't really have these backwards views.
I can't. But whether we consider it as happening in the US or in another country shouldn't matter, wouldn't you say? This sort of situation may not arise here, but it could arise in another country with much more regressive attitudes towards women.
Terrible comparison. Geller endangerd not only herself but the entire city block, maybe more. Take your strawman somewhere else, maybe reddit is more suitable for you.
I was pretty clear that the comparison also fails because there is nothing wrong in wearing revealing clothing, in general. Of course, one can imagine scenarios which are exceptions to the rule (you don't walking around in your underwear in a school yard or in a church). My point is a general one. Regardless of whether or not someone did something misguided/inappropriate, it doesn't justify the crime. Moreover, the fact that a crime was committed against them has no bearing on whether what they did was misguided/inappropriate. These seem to me to be quite obvious positions, and you've yet to directly address or refute them.
Thinking that an entire city block or more should be endangered simply because there is an art gallery showing pictures that Muslims don't agree with is pretty bigoted thinking. Would you think that way if an art gallery was showing art that the Christian or Jewish religions would find blasphemous or do you just think that Muslims are mindless beasts that can't control themselves ? Just because in this instance 2 crazies showed up does not mean that we should expect this kind of behavior.
Are you stating that there is something "wrong" with hosting an art exhibit simply because someone else might not like it? If so, that's pretty simple minded thinking IMO.
Doc Tal in this very thread is doing that and maybe others. Some of the pundits at Fox News who have had her on their shows. I understand that what exemplifies the best of free speech is subjective. Bigots will like the bigoted speech that is protected by free speech. I'm just stating my opinion that I don't think that it's the a glorious example of the best that comes from free speech. As I've said, I believe that Geller had every right to have her event. It should be protected and was protected.
There's no excuse for violence except the defense of self or those who need it. That said, what this Geller person is doing is disgusting. She's just as bad as any Mulah who preaches intolerance or hate. It's not wrong to criticize Islam, but to what end? When your goal is like ATW's - to turn people against a religion and create discrimination and hate towards it, you aren not furthering a better future but only laying down more pathways for people to dig in deeper and make things worse for everyone.
Do you even have a point you're trying to make? This isn't a fantasyland, she knows the risks and she did it anyway. Except that while she was busy barricading herself behind a human wall of security, she put everyone else at risk. Nobody is pretending the two terrorists were in the right. They deserved every bullet in the skull they got. But people like Geller should not be encouraged and get paid 200k just to pull stunts that endanger bystanders
Absolutely ridiculous, but the police presence goes to show you that there are plenty of good folks who care.
I think the point is pretty clear that you, and people who think like you are bigoted against Muslims. It's "compassionate bigotry" but your views that holding an art exhibit that Muslims wouldn't like puts "everyone else at risk" is pretty terrible....even if that's not your intention. Muslims are people just like any other so you shouldn't assume that they'd spontaneously break out into violence just because someone was doing something that their religion didn't agree with. By thinking that way, you are showing that you view Muslims as a lesser people and I think that's pretty disgusting. You wouldn't think that an art exhibit that Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, or Zoroastrians didn't agree with would necessarily put a city block or more at risk of violence....so it's pretty clear that you think that just Muslims can't control themselves. I think you should think on this for a while and try to be less bigoted in the future.
Feel free to ignore reality. And no, those art exhibits wouldn't incite violent, in America. Try them at different parts of the world and see what happens.
