26
   

Why aren't we talking about "Draw Muhammad Day?" May 20th

 
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Sep, 2010 02:38 pm
@JTT,
JTT wrote:

Occom Bill replied to this posting. I read some of it, hit REPLY, got a message saying something to the effect of "does not exist" and guess what, OC's reply does no longer exist.
I took it down to re-arrange the quotes. That is all.
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Sep, 2010 02:41 pm
@OCCOM BILL,
Quote:
she has a mind that may change with persuasive reasoning.
Laughing

Don't hold your breath.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Sep, 2010 02:46 pm
@JPB,
What you haven't done is stated why this special interest group alone should be afforded special consideration by cartoon satirists. That's not a circle. That's JPB deliberately refusing to face the flaw in the foundation of her opinion.
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Sun 19 Sep, 2010 03:00 pm
@OCCOM BILL,
Quote:
What hypocrisy? In March of this year, al-Awlaki himself declared that he was an enemy of the state by telling the Times the Jihad against the United States was binding on him and every other able bodied Muslim. All Obama did was recognize him as the enemy he is self-proclaimed to be.


That doesn't give anyone, not even a president, the right to assassinate anyone. Nor does it give a president the right to order an illegal, both international and national, action.


Quote:
If you wish to argue the merits this response; start a thread and link it. But I won't cooperate with you derailing this one with your standard "America's the great satan, and Bill's a hypocrite" idiocy.


More hypocrisy, Bill. I've never said that America's the great satan. I've shown that it has taken part in numerous instances of great evil. That you avoid these issues like the plague only tells us what we already know. You know it's the truth and yet you continue with your hypocritical pontifications.

Quote:
al-Awlaki is no boogieman. He is ranking al-queda and is a party to the crime of several terrorist attacks. Boogieman= fiction. al-Awlaki is quite real and has proven repeatedly to be very dangerous.


Yup, as we speak he is amassing a huge store of old tommy guns and tanks. Next he's starting on refurbishing some F18s.

Jaysus, Bill, you are an idiot!

Quote:
How thick am I? You are the only idiot here dumb enough to believe the U.S. is attempting to take over the world. You're probably also the only one here ignorant of the fact the proponents of Sharia Law have repeatedly stated their intent to do just that. This is propaganda only to the deliberately obtuse. The rest of us believe them when they state their purpose for themselves.


I did kinda of say that but only an idiot like you would take it so literally. Kinda a knee jerk reaction to deflect the charges of hypocrisy.

Let me remind you just how the US does what it needs to do to ensure that it keeps its greedy little claws sunk deeply into others resources. It murders 3 to four million Vietnamese; some experts suggest that Iraq is getting close to a million, seems high but I'm sure that the honest, address these issues guy that you are, we'll see some research soon on that.

World wide we're in the neighborhood of 6 million people, Bill, people who have been tortured, raped and murdered to advance the good ole American way.

No, the US doesn't want the responsibility of running the world. They simply don't want their big dipper stopped from ladling out the riches of others. Normally they are willing to share that wealth with their chosen dictator du jour, knowing full well that that piece of scum will end up, with all most of the wealth of that country, retired to the most popular terrorist/war criminals haven on the planet.

Quote:
but perhaps you'd care to identify what precisely you think Molly did wrong; and list the other entities you think she shouldn't lampoon in her satire. I triple dog dare you.


I've explained myself on Molly. No need to go into it further. What would be better, you improve your comprehension skills. Molly's now a non-entity, self chosen, I might add.







JTT
 
  0  
Reply Sun 19 Sep, 2010 03:06 pm
@OCCOM BILL,
Quote:
What you haven't done is stated why this special interest group alone should be afforded special consideration by cartoon satirists. That's not a circle.


Yes, she has, Bill. Remember reading comprehension skills.

What you've never done, Bill, is explain why the 30 or 40, who's counting? countries, instead of being able to decide how their government and lives should work, you know, inalienable rights, have instead, been devastated by US military might.

SIX MILLION DEAD, Bill and you prance on with your little projects.
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  2  
Reply Sun 19 Sep, 2010 03:19 pm
@OCCOM BILL,
Actually, I think cartoon satirists overstep a lot of lines. But that's just me and my delicate sensibilities. I don't much like ridicule or hateful, hurtful expressions in general. I don't think this one group alone should be afforded special consideration. But then, I don't much care what cartoon satirists do because I almost never give them any notice. I find them generally offensive. But that's their intent and I get that. They get to be offensive and I get to ignore them. Others get to react however they react. Most of those reactions are perfectly valid and legal. OTOH, if you're going to go out of your way to inflame a couple billion people, don't be surprised if a lot of them are hurt and a few of them fight back. As in all things in this life, Bill, there are actions and reactions -- some of them surprising, some of them predictable. Is anyone actually surprised that this is the result? It's a choice she made with a predictable outcome. I don't admire her for it in the least. I don't wish her any ill will either. I'm sorry that she's had to give up her identity and her career. But no one forced her to make the choices she made.
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Sep, 2010 03:20 pm
@JTT,
JTT wrote:
I've explained myself on Molly. No need to go into it further. What would be better, you improve your comprehension skills. Molly's now a non-entity, self chosen, I might add.
Molly is the topic of this thread. I do not see where you posted your position, can you link to it?

And for the zillionth time: I am well aware of a great many wrongs committed by my country. The fact that I refuse to cooperate with you in derailing every thread with your pet-project only makes me a hypocrit in the mind of an idiot like yourself.

Start a thread with your legal and/or moral argument against Obama adding a known Al Queda leader to a hit-list and I'll happily respond.
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Sep, 2010 03:51 pm
@JPB,
JPB wrote:

Actually, I think cartoon satirists overstep a lot of lines. But that's just me and my delicate sensibilities. I don't much like ridicule or hateful, hurtful expressions in general. I don't think this one group alone should be afforded special consideration. But then, I don't much care what cartoon satirists do because I almost never give them any notice. I find them generally offensive. But that's their intent and I get that. They get to be offensive and I get to ignore them. Others get to react however they react. Most of those reactions are perfectly valid and legal. OTOH, if you're going to go out of your way to inflame a couple billion people, don't be surprised if a lot of them are hurt and a few of them fight back. As in all things in this life, Bill, there are actions and reactions -- some of them surprising, some of them predictable. Is anyone actually surprised that this is the result? It's a choice she made with a predictable outcome. I don't admire her for it in the least. I don't wish her any ill will either. I'm sorry that she's had to give up her identity and her career. But no one forced her to make the choices she made.


There are as many followers of Christianity as there is Islam. Should satirists respect their sensibilities or face death threats as well? Is it actually your position that religion in general should be universally ignored by satirists who wish to live? But wait a minute; what about political groups? Surely they too have members that get just as bent out of shape when their ox gets gored... should their sensitivity be respected by satirists who wish to live too?

You can't possibly really believe that, JPB. You state that your sensibilities aren't reserved for Islam, but then write off death threats as nothing more than a predictable reaction. Meanwhile; you insist that you're actually a proponent of free speech. Do you mean that you really only believe in free speech that doesn't offend? Or that you believe in free speech with the caveat that if you offend you might be killed?... as if that threat is just an understandable, predictable reaction if you purposely offend.

How many comedians, cartoonists, etc could possibly do their work under such a philosophy?








JPB
 
  2  
Reply Sun 19 Sep, 2010 04:09 pm
@OCCOM BILL,
OCCOM BILL wrote:

Or that you believe in free speech with the caveat that if you offend you might be killed?... as if that threat is just an understandable, predictable reaction if you purposely offend.

How many comedians, cartoonists, etc could possibly do their work under such a philosophy?


You're getting closer. I never said understandable. I simply said predictable. Come on, Bill. You're an intelligent person. You know that there are legal limitations on free speech -- such as screaming "FIRE" in a theater when there's no fire. There are also prudent ones - based on predictable outcomes. They exist in all aspects of life. I don't say most of what I think when I'm around my in-laws, for example. It wouldn't be prudent and, to use Cyclo's phrase, it's just stirring up ****. She didn't need to make an inflammatory call to action in order to keep her livelihood. She was just stirring up ****. She regretted it and tried to pull back but the stampede to get out of the burning theater had already begun and it was too late to stop it.
JPB
 
  2  
Reply Sun 19 Sep, 2010 04:13 pm
@OCCOM BILL,
Let me ask you something, Bill.

Are you really surprised by this outcome?
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Sun 19 Sep, 2010 04:54 pm
@OCCOM BILL,
Quote:
Molly is the topic of this thread. I do not see where you posted your position, can you link to it? And for the zillionth time: I am well aware of a great many wrongs committed by my country. The fact that I refuse to cooperate with you in derailing every thread with your pet-project only makes me a hypocrit in the mind of an idiot like yourself.


Nope, Molly is, again, a non-issue. It's you, read my lips; it's the hypocrisy, stupid.

EDITED TO ADD:

Quote:
Occom Bill has the temerity to write:

You can't possibly really believe that, JPB. You state that your sensibilities aren't reserved for Islam, but then write off death threats as nothing more than a predictable reaction. Meanwhile; you insist that you're actually a proponent of free speech. Do you mean that you really only believe in free speech that doesn't offend? Or that you believe in free speech with the caveat that if you offend you might be killed?... as if that threat is just an understandable, predictable reaction if you purposely offend.



The zillionth time; on top of hypocrisy, you want to add lying. Knock yourself out, Bill.

Let me explain, once more, your stunning hypocrisy. You rant a lot about the Mollys but they're always Americans, you're always defending these god given rights. That's so ******* stupid but another day.

Have you ever criticized, with anywhere close to the same, no wait, first just the simple, have you ever criticized, say, the Reagan administration for using, not just the threat of, but actual US government sanctioned and supported, torture, rape and murder to terrorize people into not exercising their fundamental rights to free speech, freedom of association, freedom to elect the government of their choosing.

Forty thousand people died. This wasn't just some insignificant threat from some far away guy who is in hiding in his own country. This was CIA supported and trained terrorists, at the behest of Reagan and his minions to,

Quote:
[When the U.S. doesn't like a government], they send the CIA in, with its resources and activists, hiring people, hiring agents, to tear apart the social and economic fabric of the country, as a technique for putting pressure on the government, hoping that they can make the government come to the U.S.'s terms, or the government will collapse altogether and they can engineer a coup d'etat, and have the thing wind up with their own choice of people in power.

Now ripping apart the economic and social fabric of course is fairly textbook-ish. What we're talking about is going in and deliberately creating conditions where the farmer can't get his produce to market, where children can't go to school, where women are terrified inside their homes as well as outside their homes, where government administration and programs grind to a complete halt, where the hospitals are treating wounded people instead of sick people, where international capital is scared away and the country goes bankrupt. If you ask the state department today what is their official explanation of the purpose of the Contras, they say it's to attack economic targets, meaning, break up the economy of the country. Of course, they're attacking a lot more.

...

I don't mean to abuse you with verbal violence, but you have to understand what your government and its agents are doing. They go into villages, they haul out families. With the children forced to watch they castrate the father, they peel the skin off his face, they put a grenade in his mouth and pull the pin. With the children forced to watch they gang-rape the mother, and slash her breasts off. And sometimes for variety, they make the parents watch while they do these things to the children.

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Stockwell/StockwellCIA87_2.html



I've never seen or read or heard of your first time, let alone your zillionth. But you keep on with your little tea parties, Bill. They're really really important. Just ask the people of Nicaragua.

While you are talking up what an asshole some distant, insignificant cleric is, what expletive might you need to describe Reagan and his crew, all, I must remind you, free people to this day?



OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Sep, 2010 06:06 pm
@JPB,
JPB wrote:

Let me ask you something, Bill.

Are you really surprised by this outcome?
A little, yes. Not because I didn't think the demented assholes would be pissed; but because I hoped the tens of thousands of other pics posted on May 20th would be sufficient to broaden the target sufficiently that no one person would be targeted. Unfortunately, they blamed it all on a lady who never promoted actually doing it, and apologized for even conceiving of it.

JPB wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Or that you believe in free speech with the caveat that if you offend you might be killed?... as if that threat is just an understandable, predictable reaction if you purposely offend.

How many comedians, cartoonists, etc could possibly do their work under such a philosophy?


You're getting closer. I never said understandable. I simply said predictable. Come on, Bill. You're an intelligent person. You know that there are legal limitations on free speech -- such as screaming "FIRE" in a theater when there's no fire. There are also prudent ones - based on predictable outcomes. They exist in all aspects of life. I don't say most of what I think when I'm around my in-laws, for example. It wouldn't be prudent and, to use Cyclo's phrase, it's just stirring up ****.
Till this point, I agree. You could legally go into the most dangerous neighborhood in Harlem and yell, "ni**ers should all be shipped back to Africa", but it would be as foolish and dangerous as the sentiment is idiotic. Indeed, a man who chose to ignore my warnings against belligerently calling a bartender friend of mine the C-word met a violent reaction from me. There is no ambiguity in your point here.

JPB wrote:
She didn't need to make an inflammatory call to action in order to keep her livelihood.
Neither did I... but that's not the reason she made the call. Obviously, it isn't the reason I promoted it here and on Facebook either.

Her call to action was in response to death threats that had already been issued, remember? She didn't start anything; she responded to an unknown evil that was already threatening her colleagues for doing their job. IF we agree that Matt and Trey had every right to make their cartoon, and I think we do, and we agree that being threatened with death for cartoons is ridiculous, and again I think we do; then do we also agree that steps should be taken to defend their right to do so?

And if we agree that the lives of satirists are worth defending; the question becomes how can we do so? We already have laws against threatening people with death... but the criminal justice system isn't equipped to prevent ideological murder. At best, it can be used to prosecute the perpetrators of these crimes, after the fact. That doesn't offer much protection to the guy in the gun sights, does it?

The Simpsons people were probably walking right up to the edge of the line with the cartoon stating they'd stand up too, if they weren't too scared. I'd wager most everyone in the satire business considered standing up too, but ultimately most were too afraid as well.

So what else can we do? Obey every bully who makes a credible death threat? Does that really seem appropriate to you? Various bullies continue to threaten to kill gay people, for being gay. Would you recommend gays stay in the closet so as not to offend these bullies? (Btw, these same bullies hate gays every bit as much as they hate cartoonists.) Or, would you recommend that rather than staying in the closet; gays should openly oppose those who would harm them? Should other gays join them in walking in parades to show the bullies they will not be intimidated? Would you join them in that walk even though you're straight? (Time permitting, I be you would.)


Molly, (I'm assuming now) must have reasoned that it was not fair for Matt and Trey to shoulder the load alone. After all, all satirists lampoon people and practices for a living. It's what they do, and they most certainly don't deserve to die for it, no matter how distasteful their work may be. So why not demonstrate solidarity by exercising the same right Matt and Trey were under fire for? And not wishing to be the only other cartoonist in the crosshairs; the logical next step would be to invite everyone to join her.

I wouldn't describe her call to action or her very docile cartoon as particularly inflammatory either. I think any rational person viewing that cartoon, be they Muslim or not, would have to concede that she went out of her way to be as gentle as possible while getting her point across.

Her scheme seemed logical enough on the surface. Heck, 1 in 36 people will die by accident without any help from an unknown assailant, so broadening the target to many different artists should certainly serve to reduce the chances of any of them in particular being executed.

The flaw in her theory, although sound, is she may not have realized that she alone would be blamed for the actions of everyone who agreed with her. Had she had some mechanism of spreading the word of the plan anonymously; it probably would have been a complete success.

I believe her actions were very heroic indeed. She didn't make a living bashing Islam. I've never seen another cartoon from her that could be deemed offensive to Islam. What she did is speak out on behalf of a colleague who was being threatened with death, and I can only commend her for it.

By issuing a Fatwa against her, the intention is clear. al-Awlaki believes he can intimidate the rest of the planet into bowing to his demented demand that all people respect this tenet of his version of Sharia Law. **** him. He has no more right to superimpose his will on me than anyone else. While I certainly wouldn't like to get my own head sawed off for opposing him; neither do I expect a handful of brave satirists to carry the burden of defending freedom of speech on their own.

Molly is the victim here. She is being victimized for having the decency to stand up for her colleagues. History will remember her as a hero, and I wish her the very best of luck in whatever she does next.




OCCOM BILL
 
  2  
Reply Sun 19 Sep, 2010 06:12 pm
@JTT,
Proving once again that you are nothing more than an idiotic troll who deserves to be ignored for derailing thread after thread with your mindless blathering. Bye troll.
JTT
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 19 Sep, 2010 07:13 pm
@OCCOM BILL,
The hypocrite is up a stump, so he resorts to the cheapest trick in the book. Well, I guess it's arguable if this is the cheapest trick, maybe the second cheapest or the fifth, but it's all big 'H' Hypocrite Bill could come up with facing things that he simply can't face, ... for the zillionth time.
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Sep, 2010 07:26 pm
@OCCOM BILL,
OCCOM BILL wrote:

Till this point, I agree. You could legally go into the most dangerous neighborhood in Harlem and yell, "ni**ers should all be shipped back to Africa", but it would be as foolish and dangerous as the sentiment is idiotic. Indeed, a man who chose to ignore my warnings against belligerently calling a bartender friend of mine the C-word met a violent reaction from me. There is no ambiguity in your point here.


I'm curious why you used asterisks to type the word "niggers", Bill. Is it because it's insensitive and inflammatory?

You see the point of not going into Harlem and getting one's ass whooped (or... murdered), and you wouldn't suggest that his friends should going back into that same neighborhood to avenge his beating, would you? Actually, I can see a bunch of stupid white guys getting all beer'd up and full of testosterone and doing just that.... and getting their asses whooped too.

Sure, she had every reason to support her friends. But supporting them by promoting the very action that got them their death threats resulted in the same outcome. I'm sure she didn't anticipate that, but it was a foolish and dangerous act on her part.
Quote:

So what else can we do? Obey every bully who makes a credible death threat? Does that really seem appropriate to you? Various bullies continue to threaten to kill gay people, for being gay. Would you recommend gays stay in the closet so as not to offend these bullies? (Btw, these same bullies hate gays every bit as much as they hate cartoonists.) Or, would you recommend that rather than staying in the closet; gays should openly oppose those who would harm them? Should other gays join them in walking in parades to show the bullies they will not be intimidated? Would you join them in that walk even though you're straight? (Time permitting, I be you would.)


Sure, and if Molly had organized an "Help Support Free Speech" parade instead of a shove-it-in-their-faces, "Take That, You Assholes!" call to action then she probably wouldn't have gotten a death threat either.

Something you wrote near the beginning of this thread is still pertinent. This isn't just about assholes and satirists. It's about 2 billion people who she set out to hurt. You said

Quote:
It is a pity that the show of solidarity runs the risk of offending a billion people. That really isn't the point, and it's relatively harmless collateral damage anyway. The point is that the relative few extremists that would literally lose their minds and start killing cartoonists; cannot kill us all if we stand together. I for one have no intention of obeying the demands of any religious extremist. Neither should you.


It's the thought that this "relatively harmless collateral damage anyway" justifies her, and your, actions that prevents me from agreeing with you.


OCCOM BILL wrote:
Molly, (I'm assuming now) must have reasoned that it was not fair for Matt and Trey to shoulder the load alone. After all, all satirists lampoon people and practices for a living. It's what they do, and they most certainly don't deserve to die for it, no matter how distasteful their work may be. So why not demonstrate solidarity by exercising the same right Matt and Trey were under fire for? And not wishing to be the only other cartoonist in the crosshairs; the logical next step would be to invite everyone to join her.


For the same reason that you wouldn't gather up all you best buddies and rush off to Harlem to kick some ass!

Quote:

Molly is the victim here. She is being victimized for having the decency to stand up for her colleagues. History will remember her as a hero, and I wish her the very best of luck in whatever she does next.


Your crystal ball is better than mine on how history will remember her. I wish her the very best of luck too.
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Sun 19 Sep, 2010 07:35 pm
@OCCOM BILL,
Quote:
Indeed, a man who chose to ignore my warnings against belligerently calling a bartender friend of mine the C-word met a violent reaction from me.


Can we say hypocrite, Bill? Freedom of speech is just another phrase you use to try to impress. It holds no special meaning to you. You're all hypocrisy, from beginning to end.

Someone chose to ignore your warnings to not exercise his free speech and the hypocritical asshole who has been ranting for pages about everyone's right to free speech just sunk himself.

0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  2  
Reply Sun 19 Sep, 2010 08:19 pm
@JPB,
JPB wrote:
Sure, and if Molly had organized an "Help Support Free Speech" parade instead of a shove-it-in-their-faces, "Take That, You Assholes!" call to action then she probably wouldn't have gotten a death threat either.
How would organizing a "Help Support Free Speech" parade have taken any heat off of Matt and Trey? (We’ll get to the rest of that absurd exaggeration of what she did later)

JPB wrote:
Something you wrote near the beginning of this thread is still pertinent. This isn't just about assholes and satirists. It's about 2 billion people who she set out to hurt. You said

Quote:
It is a pity that the show of solidarity runs the risk of offending a billion people. That really isn't the point, and it's relatively harmless collateral damage anyway. The point is that the relative few extremists that would literally lose their minds and start killing cartoonists; cannot kill us all if we stand together. I for one have no intention of obeying the demands of any religious extremist. Neither should you.


It's the thought that this "relatively harmless collateral damage anyway" justifies her, and your, actions that prevents me from agreeing with you.
Yes I know. This is because your predisposition is blurring your perspective. Perspective:
1. There are not 2 Billion Muslims on this planet.
2. The vast majority of Muslims wouldn't take the criticism any worse than the vast majority of Christians take their daily dose of same.
3. Not one single Muslim had to look at a single cartoon if they didn't want to.
4. Even children know that sticks and stones may break their bones, but cartoons will never hurt them.
5. Placing a higher value on the sensitivity of one human than the very life of another is the height of absurdity.


JPB wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Molly, (I'm assuming now) must have reasoned that it was not fair for Matt and Trey to shoulder the load alone. After all, all satirists lampoon people and practices for a living. It's what they do, and they most certainly don't deserve to die for it, no matter how distasteful their work may be. So why not demonstrate solidarity by exercising the same right Matt and Trey were under fire for? And not wishing to be the only other cartoonist in the crosshairs; the logical next step would be to invite everyone to join her.


For the same reason that you wouldn't gather up all you best buddies and rush off to Harlem to kick some ass!
Rolling Eyes Molly didn't go anywhere. She published her cartoon on the internet, just as you published the word ni**er. If an unknown gang from Harlem started threatening your life for doing so; you'd have a valid comparison... and I'd probably join you in solidarity while disclaiming the reason for my decision to do so was NOT to offend the vast majority of Black people, who wouldn't dream of threatening to kill you for saying something offensive. Stop pretending she shoved anything in anyone's face. She didn't, any more than you just did.

This, btw, is your biggest fundamental error. Thinking she actually hurt anyone. Jeepers JPB, If her G-rated little cartoon hurt somebody; I must be the baby-eating great Satan.

JPB wrote:
Quote:

Molly is the victim here. She is being victimized for having the decency to stand up for her colleagues. History will remember her as a hero, and I wish her the very best of luck in whatever she does next.


Your crystal ball is better than mine on how history will remember her. I wish her the very best of luck too.
I have read a great deal about people who've pushed the envelope in acquiring, maintaining and expanding our personal freedoms and believe I am on very solid ground in my prediction. Molly didn’t push the envelope half as far as Larry Flint. The only thing extreme about this dust up is the demented idiot’s death threats over cartoons. You need to face the truth of this.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 19 Sep, 2010 09:34 pm
@OCCOM BILL,
http://able2know.org/topic/161635-1

http://able2know.org/topic/161636-1
0 Replies
 
 

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/27/2021 at 03:15:52