And go ahead and paint/draw any pictures u want of Mohammed. No one in Islam knows what he looked like so whatever.
Probably looked like any average dude if that's the case. It boggles my mind why anyone would give a crap if someone made a picture of him. And it boggles X1000 times my mind that someone would want to kill another human for drawing a picture of him.
What if the drawing looked like Ryan Reynolds? That's not too shabby.
Very true Jason. When it comes to Islam, the reason we don't draw pictures or make any sculptures when it comes to Mohammed is because he was just a prophet for God and it's so that he isn't worshipped as idol/God, in example of Jesus and Christians. Hope that makes a little sense. I'm not the best person to be speaking for Islam but I just try to share whatever information I know.
I'm cool with the concept, just not the punishment.
Oh 1000% man, these Fucken idiots are playing the role of "God" and in Islam that's a NO-NO. Shows you how much they know about their own religion. I look at it like this, if there's a God and what they're doing in a no-no, he's gonna punish them as we're told to believe. So why should I lose any sleep over some fucktards drawing pics to provoke a reaction likes this? Dumb shits all over the world. It's what makes the world go round.
I almost started a thread for this, then decided it belonged in the idiot thread. Idiot rednecks throw an anti-Muslim party to provoke violence, shell out 10,000$ for armed guards, and then idiot Muslims (assumption at this point) are dumb enough to be goaded into the violence and lose their lives for it. Idiots all around.
Wow.
Extremists on both sides of the equation.
This does belong in the idiot thread. Mass idiocy is nothing to sneer at. The art show seems criminal in nature, but the response is outrageous.
How does the art show itself seem criminal in nature? I know it was organized by a hate group, but the theme of the art show itself doesn't sound criminal to me at all. I guess there is a question of intent here, but still, legally and artistically speaking, I see no problem. I mean, if it had been organized by a group for freedom of speech or the press, it would probably be viewed as socially progressive.
It was staged with the intent of provocation alone. It wasn't about art, or the principle of free speech, it was about deliberately offending and provoking a group of people using art and free speech as an excuse and justification. The organizers spent $10,000 dollars on a private security force because they were intentionally prodding a beehive.
Not criminal in my mind, just extremely idiotic and low. Pathetic really. You know from our past convos that I am no fan of religion, and have no qualms about heavily criticizing religion and it's adherents, but I am not going out of my way to provoke and offend.
Well, yeah, given the group who organized it, the intent is hateful, obviously. However, does that make an exhibition of caricatures of Mohammad unacceptable? Serious question - I haven't actually decided. I am personally in favour of people drawing caricatures of Mohammad as a statement against fundamentalism - doing it as a provocation actually doesn't bother me at all - I consider that part of the point, or at least the inevitable result, as Charlie Hebdo taught us .... But I'm not in favour of any hate groups. So I guess the question boils down to this: If it's okay to provoke religious fanatics with cartoons of Mohammad in the name of free speech or as a statement against fanaticism, then is it also okay to provoke religious fanatics with cartoons of Mohammad in the name of Islamophobia? Exact same actions, different motivations.... legally, can there be a distinction?
I almost started a thread for this, then decided it belonged in the idiot thread. Idiot rednecks throw an anti-Muslim party to provoke violence, shell out 10,000$ for armed guards, and then idiot Muslims (assumption at this point) are dumb enough to be goaded into the violence and lose their lives for it. Idiots all around.
Wow.
Extremists on both sides of the equation.
This does belong in the idiot thread. Mass idiocy is nothing to sneer at. The art show seems criminal in nature, but the response is outrageous.
How does the art show itself seem criminal in nature? I know it was organized by a hate group, but the theme of the art show itself doesn't sound criminal to me at all. I guess there is a question of intent here, but still, legally and artistically speaking, I see no problem. I mean, if it had been organized by a group for freedom of speech or the press, it would probably be viewed as socially progressive.
It was staged with the intent of provocation alone. It wasn't about art, or the principle of free speech, it was about deliberately offending and provoking a group of people using art and free speech as an excuse and justification. The organizers spent $10,000 dollars on a private security force because they were intentionally prodding a beehive.
Not criminal in my mind, just extremely idiotic and low. Pathetic really. You know from our past convos that I am no fan of religion, and have no qualms about heavily criticizing religion and it's adherents, but I am not going out of my way to provoke and offend.
Well, yeah, given the group who organized it, the intent is hateful, obviously. However, does that make an exhibition of caricatures of Mohammad unacceptable? Serious question - I haven't actually decided. I am personally in favour of people drawing caricatures of Mohammad as a statement against fundamentalism - doing it as a provocation actually doesn't bother me at all - I consider that part of the point, or at least the inevitable result, as Charlie Hebdo taught us .... But I'm not in favour of any hate groups. So I guess the question boils down to this: If it's okay to provoke religious fanatics with cartoons of Mohammad in the name of free speech or as a statement against fanaticism, then is it also okay to provoke religious fanatics with cartoons of Mohammad in the name of Islamophobia? Exact same actions, different motivations.... legally, can there be a distinction?
You have ZERO clue of Charlie hebdo. Go and REALLY look into what that so called freedom of speech when it comes to ALL religions. Go and search, you'll be amazed at that so called free speech.
I am no expert on Charlie Hebdo. I'm interested in knowing your take on him. I have seen all of his cartoons related to Islam and have seen all the general news about him, but haven't kept informed on deeper details.
I could give to 2 shits about them or anybody who draws pics for shock value. It doesn't bother me, has no bearing on me whatsoever. But if people are gonna cry over Charlie hebdo and free speech, please go and do some investigating and see if it's all it's cracked up to be when it comes with Charlie hebdo and free speech. Like really look into it.
What am I supposed to be looking for?? Do I even need to know more than I already know for my purposes? What is relevant besides the cartoons he drew, the controversy behind them, and the fact that he was murdered for them? Are you not willing to tell me what you're trying to get at here? I have no idea what you're talking about.
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I almost started a thread for this, then decided it belonged in the idiot thread. Idiot rednecks throw an anti-Muslim party to provoke violence, shell out 10,000$ for armed guards, and then idiot Muslims (assumption at this point) are dumb enough to be goaded into the violence and lose their lives for it. Idiots all around.
Wow.
Extremists on both sides of the equation.
This does belong in the idiot thread. Mass idiocy is nothing to sneer at. The art show seems criminal in nature, but the response is outrageous.
How does the art show itself seem criminal in nature? I know it was organized by a hate group, but the theme of the art show itself doesn't sound criminal to me at all. I guess there is a question of intent here, but still, legally and artistically speaking, I see no problem. I mean, if it had been organized by a group for freedom of speech or the press, it would probably be viewed as socially progressive.
It was staged with the intent of provocation alone. It wasn't about art, or the principle of free speech, it was about deliberately offending and provoking a group of people using art and free speech as an excuse and justification. The organizers spent $10,000 dollars on a private security force because they were intentionally prodding a beehive.
Not criminal in my mind, just extremely idiotic and low. Pathetic really. You know from our past convos that I am no fan of religion, and have no qualms about heavily criticizing religion and it's adherents, but I am not going out of my way to provoke and offend.
Well, yeah, given the group who organized it, the intent is hateful, obviously. However, does that make an exhibition of caricatures of Mohammad unacceptable? Serious question - I haven't actually decided. I am personally in favour of people drawing caricatures of Mohammad as a statement against fundamentalism - doing it as a provocation actually doesn't bother me at all - I consider that part of the point, or at least the inevitable result, as Charlie Hebdo taught us .... But I'm not in favour of any hate groups. So I guess the question boils down to this: If it's okay to provoke religious fanatics with cartoons of Mohammad in the name of free speech or as a statement against fanaticism, then is it also okay to provoke religious fanatics with cartoons of Mohammad in the name of Islamophobia? Exact same actions, different motivations.... legally, can there be a distinction?
You have ZERO clue of Charlie hebdo. Go and REALLY look into what that so called freedom of speech when it comes to ALL religions. Go and search, you'll be amazed at that so called free speech.
I am no expert on Charlie Hebdo. I'm interested in knowing your take on him. I have seen all of his cartoons related to Islam and have seen all the general news about him, but haven't kept informed on deeper details.
I could give to 2 shits about them or anybody who draws pics for shock value. It doesn't bother me, has no bearing on me whatsoever. But if people are gonna cry over Charlie hebdo and free speech, please go and do some investigating and see if it's all it's cracked up to be when it comes with Charlie hebdo and free speech. Like really look into it.
What am I supposed to be looking for?? Do I even need to know more than I already know for my purposes? What is relevant besides the cartoons he drew, the controversy behind them, and the fact that he was murdered for them? Are you not willing to tell me what you're trying to get at here? I have no idea what you're talking about.
lets just say Charlie hebdo isnt a pillar for all freedom of speech.
Today I was coming back from a long bike ride and was just a few minutes from home. The right hand lane was a right turning lane into a little mall so I was in the next lane over when I was stopped at a red light. A guy pulls up in a big truck to my right (in the right turn lane), rolls down his window, and says "you're supposed to be in the fucking right hand lane!". I politely tell him I'm going straight, not turning right, so I'm in the correct lane, to which he replies "You're still supposed to be in the fucking right lane, you idiot!". At that point the light turns green and he floors it and drives right in front of me and into the through lane. Guess he didn't want to turn right either.
I didn't let that ruin an otherwise fantastic 90 minute ride; it just added a certain frisson to the proceedings.
And I have my own opinion at to which of us is the idiot.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
I almost started a thread for this, then decided it belonged in the idiot thread. Idiot rednecks throw an anti-Muslim party to provoke violence, shell out 10,000$ for armed guards, and then idiot Muslims (assumption at this point) are dumb enough to be goaded into the violence and lose their lives for it. Idiots all around.
Wow.
Extremists on both sides of the equation.
This does belong in the idiot thread. Mass idiocy is nothing to sneer at. The art show seems criminal in nature, but the response is outrageous.
How does the art show itself seem criminal in nature? I know it was organized by a hate group, but the theme of the art show itself doesn't sound criminal to me at all. I guess there is a question of intent here, but still, legally and artistically speaking, I see no problem. I mean, if it had been organized by a group for freedom of speech or the press, it would probably be viewed as socially progressive.
It was staged with the intent of provocation alone. It wasn't about art, or the principle of free speech, it was about deliberately offending and provoking a group of people using art and free speech as an excuse and justification. The organizers spent $10,000 dollars on a private security force because they were intentionally prodding a beehive.
Not criminal in my mind, just extremely idiotic and low. Pathetic really. You know from our past convos that I am no fan of religion, and have no qualms about heavily criticizing religion and it's adherents, but I am not going out of my way to provoke and offend.
Well, yeah, given the group who organized it, the intent is hateful, obviously. However, does that make an exhibition of caricatures of Mohammad unacceptable? Serious question - I haven't actually decided. I am personally in favour of people drawing caricatures of Mohammad as a statement against fundamentalism - doing it as a provocation actually doesn't bother me at all - I consider that part of the point, or at least the inevitable result, as Charlie Hebdo taught us .... But I'm not in favour of any hate groups. So I guess the question boils down to this: If it's okay to provoke religious fanatics with cartoons of Mohammad in the name of free speech or as a statement against fanaticism, then is it also okay to provoke religious fanatics with cartoons of Mohammad in the name of Islamophobia? Exact same actions, different motivations.... legally, can there be a distinction?
You have ZERO clue of Charlie hebdo. Go and REALLY look into what that so called freedom of speech when it comes to ALL religions. Go and search, you'll be amazed at that so called free speech.
I am no expert on Charlie Hebdo. I'm interested in knowing your take on him. I have seen all of his cartoons related to Islam and have seen all the general news about him, but haven't kept informed on deeper details.
I could give to 2 shits about them or anybody who draws pics for shock value. It doesn't bother me, has no bearing on me whatsoever. But if people are gonna cry over Charlie hebdo and free speech, please go and do some investigating and see if it's all it's cracked up to be when it comes with Charlie hebdo and free speech. Like really look into it.
What am I supposed to be looking for?? Do I even need to know more than I already know for my purposes? What is relevant besides the cartoons he drew, the controversy behind them, and the fact that he was murdered for them? Are you not willing to tell me what you're trying to get at here? I have no idea what you're talking about.
lets just say Charlie hebdo isnt a pillar for all freedom of speech.
I never said he was... but he was killed because other people don't want him to have it.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Whenever an article has the phrase "the person had to travel to the Ukraine because their country doesn't allow ...", there is a good goddamn reason why your country doesn't allow such thing if going to the Ukraine is the only option left on the table.
You had to open that door, Jason - and now I must walk through it.
"You know what the Ukraine is? It's a sitting duck. A road apple, Newman. The Ukraine is weak. It's feeble. I think it's time to put the hurt on the Ukraine."
It's too bad everyone in society wasn't legally allowed one or two smacks a month. That way, if you come across an idiot that needs a smack... you could smack them.
You could warn them first: "Sir, I feel obliged to tell you I am in legal possession of two smacks. It's late in the month and your idiocy is tempting me to use one, if not two, smacks at this moment."
Some could be more spontaneous: "You, sir, are an idiot." SMACK!
Right now, more often than not, we mutter or think about the idiot in our head. With this exciting and new strategy, idiots have a legitimate chance to realize they're being an idiot... and good people can smack something other than their forehead when encountering idiocy.
An idiot clan of champions here. In short, a family forces a gay boy to have sex with his mother to 'straighten him out' in what is called corrective rape:
Geezuz, man. Not only is this backwards, deviant, immoral and corrupt behaviour... the logic is seriously flawed: you would think that if you wished for the chance to turn the sexual preferences of a gay youth towards the opposite sex... you'd do so with a foxy, younger version of the opposite sex instead of, well, mom.
Today I was coming back from a long bike ride and was just a few minutes from home. The right hand lane was a right turning lane into a little mall so I was in the next lane over when I was stopped at a red light. A guy pulls up in a big truck to my right (in the right turn lane), rolls down his window, and says "you're supposed to be in the fucking right hand lane!". I politely tell him I'm going straight, not turning right, so I'm in the correct lane, to which he replies "You're still supposed to be in the fucking right lane, you idiot!". At that point the light turns green and he floors it and drives right in front of me and into the through lane. Guess he didn't want to turn right either.
I didn't let that ruin an otherwise fantastic 90 minute ride; it just added a certain frisson to the proceedings.
And I have my own opinion at to which of us is the idiot.
so many idiotic drivers that have a serious hate-on for cyclists. they think all cyclists need to be in the far right lane no matter what. so ignorant of traffic laws.
Vengeful Citizens Push Over Port-a-Potty as Man Masturbates Inside
In Portland lives a man who jerks off in a port-a-potty, with the door open, regularly. This morning, a group of homeless people who live near the toilet decided they’d had enough and pushed the port-a-potty over, covering the masturbating exhibitionist with shit.
KATU reports that the incident took place this morning around 8 a.m., at the Eastbank Esplanade near Portland’s Hawthorne bridge, when the 48-year-old man allegedly entered the bathroom and began to expose himself.
“[He] was flashing us over and over again, and we asked him multiple times and told him to stop and he wouldn’t,” a homeless woman told KATU. “Our friend thought it would be funny to get up and jump behind the port-a-potty and kick it.”
The port-a-potty tumbled over, trapping the man inside. Portland Fire and Rescue crews rescued him. Responding police declined to arrest him.
“Physically, he’s fine but he had a crappy day,” Portland Police spokesman Willie Halliburton told KATU. “Fortunately for him, he had some clothing he could change into and clean himself up later on. It worked out OK.”
Glad to hear everything ended happily for the man who regularly masturbates in a port-a-potty with the door open.
I said it in another thread- the problem with democracy is that guys like that are able to exercise their voices when they should be led around by the nose. This is the problem with the US- way too many fools and they shackle progressive thinking and progress with their dim witted grasp of reality. Aspiring leaders who likely get the bigger picture aren't concerned with doing the right thing as much as they are concerned with placating the befuddled masses and their votes.
Smart people are reduced to wanting to poke pins in their eyeballs- how frustrating. It would be so much easier and less stressful being a simple fool incapable of heightened awareness: I'm warm... the sun feels nice on me... I'm hungry... burgers taste good for me... I'm bored... Duck Dynasty is fun for me.
What a surprise! Palin thinks it's okay to be a pedo as long as you are one of her fundie kind! Michael was right. He no longer is the funniest Palin.
This is so ludicrous it gives me a headache. A 7 year old can't be held accountable for doing something like that. These two situation aren't comparable in any way.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
They're calling this a tragedy. I'm thinking this has to be one of the stupidest things I've ever heard.
A tragedy for his family, that he made such an incredibly stupid decision.
I know. I realize this is heartbreaking for the survivors and I do feel badly for them.
From a scientific perspective (and half seriously of course), our species is getting smarter every time something like this occurs. Our warning labels and signs stymie evolution somewhat.
This thread is full of people that might not have made it until now without society safeguarding them.
They're calling this a tragedy. I'm thinking this has to be one of the stupidest things I've ever heard.
A tragedy for his family, that he made such an incredibly stupid decision.
I know. I realize this is heartbreaking for the survivors and I do feel badly for them.
From a scientific perspective (and half seriously of course), our species is getting smarter every time something like this occurs. Our warning labels and signs stymie evolution somewhat.
This thread is full of people that might not have made it until now without society safeguarding them.
Although we will never know just how much the mocking weighed into the alligator's decision, it must be said that it won this round.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
Comments
Are you not willing to tell me what you're trying to get at here? I have no idea what you're talking about.
I didn't let that ruin an otherwise fantastic 90 minute ride; it just added a certain frisson to the proceedings.
And I have my own opinion at to which of us is the idiot.
Wow
http://www.torontosun.com/2015/05/09/principal-spews-racist-comment-at-high-school-grad-ceremony
"The school teacher already has 13 children, aged 9 to 44, from five other fathers."
I seriously want to smack this selfish stupid woman.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/quadruplets-born-to-65-year-old-mom-still-in-critical-phase/ar-BBkiuVc?ocid=HPCDHP
"You know what the Ukraine is? It's a sitting duck. A road apple, Newman. The Ukraine is weak. It's feeble. I think it's time to put the hurt on the Ukraine."
You could warn them first: "Sir, I feel obliged to tell you I am in legal possession of two smacks. It's late in the month and your idiocy is tempting me to use one, if not two, smacks at this moment."
Some could be more spontaneous: "You, sir, are an idiot." SMACK!
Right now, more often than not, we mutter or think about the idiot in our head. With this exciting and new strategy, idiots have a legitimate chance to realize they're being an idiot... and good people can smack something other than their forehead when encountering idiocy.
Ya see... this is what I'm talking' bout.
http://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/gay-teenager-forced-to-have-sex-with-his-own-mother-in-corrective-rape-in-india/ar-BBkyZPp
Geezuz, man. Not only is this backwards, deviant, immoral and corrupt behaviour... the logic is seriously flawed: you would think that if you wished for the chance to turn the sexual preferences of a gay youth towards the opposite sex... you'd do so with a foxy, younger version of the opposite sex instead of, well, mom.
Just plain idiotic.
www.headstonesband.com
In Portland lives a man who jerks off in a port-a-potty, with the door open, regularly. This morning, a group of homeless people who live near the toilet decided they’d had enough and pushed the port-a-potty over, covering the masturbating exhibitionist with shit.
KATU reports that the incident took place this morning around 8 a.m., at the Eastbank Esplanade near Portland’s Hawthorne bridge, when the 48-year-old man allegedly entered the bathroom and began to expose himself.
“[He] was flashing us over and over again, and we asked him multiple times and told him to stop and he wouldn’t,” a homeless woman told KATU. “Our friend thought it would be funny to get up and jump behind the port-a-potty and kick it.”
The port-a-potty tumbled over, trapping the man inside. Portland Fire and Rescue crews rescued him. Responding police declined to arrest him.
“Physically, he’s fine but he had a crappy day,” Portland Police spokesman Willie Halliburton told KATU. “Fortunately for him, he had some clothing he could change into and clean himself up later on. It worked out OK.”
Glad to hear everything ended happily for the man who regularly masturbates in a port-a-potty with the door open.
gawker.com/vengeful-citizens-push-over-port-a-potty-as-man-masturb-1709117875
https://www.yahoo.com/travel/is-it-ok-to-bring-a-loaded-gun-into-an-airport-120692240587.html
I said it in another thread- the problem with democracy is that guys like that are able to exercise their voices when they should be led around by the nose. This is the problem with the US- way too many fools and they shackle progressive thinking and progress with their dim witted grasp of reality. Aspiring leaders who likely get the bigger picture aren't concerned with doing the right thing as much as they are concerned with placating the befuddled masses and their votes.
Smart people are reduced to wanting to poke pins in their eyeballs- how frustrating. It would be so much easier and less stressful being a simple fool incapable of heightened awareness: I'm warm... the sun feels nice on me... I'm hungry... burgers taste good for me... I'm bored... Duck Dynasty is fun for me.
What a surprise! Palin thinks it's okay to be a pedo as long as you are one of her fundie kind! Michael was right. He no longer is the funniest Palin.
Absolutely amazing to me that some states are making it EASIER to get a gun. Unbelievable.
Man mocks alligators, jumps in water and is killed in Texas
http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/04/us/texas-alligator-attack
From a scientific perspective (and half seriously of course), our species is getting smarter every time something like this occurs. Our warning labels and signs stymie evolution somewhat.
This thread is full of people that might not have made it until now without society safeguarding them.