The Idiot Thread

rgambs said:

PJ_Soul said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

rgambs said:

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/7201314

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?

badbrains said:

PJ_Soul said:

rgambs said:

PJ_Soul said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

rgambs said:

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/7201314

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.

badbrains said:

Jason P said:

badbrains said:

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.

PJ_Soul said:

rgambs said:

PJ_Soul said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

rgambs said:

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/7201314

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?

So wonder how many Christians were in attendance?

badbrains said:

PJ_Soul said:

badbrains said:

PJ_Soul said:

badbrains said:

PJ_Soul said:

rgambs said:

PJ_Soul said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

rgambs said:

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/7201314

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.

This makes my blood boil, not to mention wonder what kind of life these little ones will have.

"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 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."