Shooting In Garland Tx At Mohammed cartoon contest

[Easy Bakes 253]

2 people dead and the idiots run around  wondering why it happened.

how bout maybe after the incident in France  you DONT have a cartoon contest depicting Mohammed?( most of which were caricatures )

thats advertized months in advance? when you know its going to cause an event like this to happen?

how bout instead of  tolerance  of others beliefs we respect them? Na never mind. carry on.....

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.myfoxal.com/story/28965780/city-2-gunmen-killed-outside-muhammad-cartoon-contest

 

 

 

^

thats why this crap keeps going

[ROFLyoshi 1,760]

Just because you can, doesn't mean you shouldn't. Although I don't condone the shooters actions, I can see how this would happen. I saw her being interviewed on the news and was disgusted with her disregard for safety, and how she was almost 'inviting' this controversy.

[MushyMushy 3,618]

While I don't condone the actions of the shooters, I really don't support what the people were doing over there in that Texas town. It seems like they were trying to cause something like this to happen, as I think it's fairly common knowledge that creating a depiction of Mohammad is seriously offensive to people who follow Islam. Since I'm sure many of the people at the gathering have beliefs they would like to have respected, maybe they should learn to do the same and stop trying to blatantly anger and offend people simply because they believe something different.

[Duke87 1,070]

Events like this are intentionally provocative, but when people flip out in response it REALLY doesn't help their case. Apparently no one taught these gunmen "don't feed the troll".

 

Nonetheless, I still am 100% behind the organizers, trollish as their work may be. Yes, some may find drawing Mohammad to be offensive, but that does not give anyone the right to start violence or make death threats in response to it. Nor is it right to allow anyone to censor free speech because the content of it bothers them. What good is the first amendment if people can gag and silence others by threatening violence?

 

Meanwhile this goes both ways. Burning an American flag (for example) is also quite offensive, but it is still protected free speech all the same - and waving a shotgun at someone burning a flag is just as wrong as making death threats to people drawing Mohammad.

 

In the real world, not everyone thinks alike. No matter who you are or what you believe in, someone somewhere is going to insult it. I don't see why so many people can't handle this like adults and manage it without throwing a tantrum.

[ROFLyoshi 1,760]

Meanwhile this goes both ways. Burning an American flag (for example) is also quite offensive, but it is still protected free speech all the same - and waving a shotgun at someone burning a flag is just as wrong as making death threats to people drawing Mohammad.

The problem is, I feel the organisers would not see it the same and would do everything in their power to stop any event threatening their religion.

Besides, what was even the point of this? To show how much "we luv jesus and being rednecks and racists?"

[LexusInfernus 908]

This is a case of extremists attacking extremists. The organizers of this event have already been classified as a hate group, the set up of this little contest was to deliberately insult and hurt the Muslim community, and the speakers they invited are known racists and right wing extremists. They fully anticipated that they might be attacked by Muslim extremists, given how they had stationed a small army to protect them at the place where they would hold the event, because they deliberately did everything they could to provoke them. And to no one's surprise, they managed to draw out two gullible idiots to actually attack them. 

 

But lets remember that as well, as the bigots that organized this contest will use this to declare 'war' on every Muslim in America, that there were only 2 idiots that tried to attack them. Overall, the Muslim community had deliberately decided to just ignore these idiots and let them have their stupid little contest. 

[ROFLyoshi 1,760]

I did indeed find out that the group has been classified as a hate group. Why then was thus group allowed to host this event?

[LexusInfernus 908]

Because even hate groups have the right of free speech. 

[Easy Bakes 253]

I did indeed find out that the group has been classified as a hate group. Why then was thus group allowed to host this event?

because they probably threatened to sue if they were not allowed to hold this event

[A Nonny Moose 8,263]

ISIS attack on U.S. Soil

 

Or so they claim.  The American interpretation of freedom of speech is licence not freedom.  Provocation was the business of this meeting and nothing else.

[LexusInfernus 908]

Freedom of speech also means that people you strongly disagree with are allowed to have their speech. As much as I find groups who organize these kind of events distasteful, harmful and needlessly provocative, they should be allowed to speak up. 

 

It should then be up to everyone who disagrees with them to tell them how awful they are. 

[A Nonny Moose 8,263]

Freedom of speech also means that people you strongly disagree with are allowed to have their speech. As much as I find groups who organize these kind of events distasteful, harmful and needlessly provocative, they should be allowed to speak up. 

 

It should then be up to everyone who disagrees with them to tell them how awful they are. 

I guess one of the differences between our two countries is that we don't tolerate haters.  We actually have legislation against hate.

 

For every minute of hate one indulges oneself in, one loses 60 seconds of happiness.

[LexusInfernus 908]

I guess one of the differences between our two countries is that we don't tolerate haters.  We actually have legislation against hate.

 

For every minute of hate one indulges oneself in, one loses 60 seconds of happiness.

 

We have legislation against inciting hate as well. They are currently in the process of prosecuting Geert Wilders, one of the speakers at this event, for just such a thing. 

 

And in any case, in a functional democracy you don't need legislation against hate. The public discourse should be the ones telling haters to shut up because no one likes their bigotry. Setting up laws to prevent people from being hateful though, is the first step of punishing people for having certain opinions and modes of thinking, and that should be unacceptable in a free country. 

[A Nonny Moose 8,263]

The present laws in Canada against hate speakers arose out of WW II.  Hardly ever applied any more, but recently an aboriginal leader who expressed public admiration of Adolf the Aryan was hauled up on it, and was expelled from the Order of Canada, which is just about the most dishonour we can apply.

[ROFLyoshi 1,760]

It is certainly a thorny issue with the line being blurred. Hate speech may be "free" for the reasons Lexus argued, but then where does that leave hate speech that incites violence and harassment, even if the original speech was not harrassing?

I'm not sure whether I would be in favour of restricting hate speech as both arguments are perfectly valid.

[A Nonny Moose 8,263]

I am fairly sure that everyone with a British-derived Criminal Code has a section on "inciting to riot" which could be sufficient to cover people who spew hate and exhort people to take inappropriate action.

 

The real question is what does "freedom of speech" really mean?  Justice Holmes long ago ruled that free speech does not include the right to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theatre (SCOTUS).  One could construe the Prophet baiting of this exhibit was of a similar ilk.

 

Calling these people "rednecks" is an insult to all farmers.

[LexusInfernus 908]

It is certainly a thorny issue with the line being blurred. Hate speech may be "free" for the reasons Lexus argued, but then where does that leave hate speech that incites violence and harassment, even if the original speech was not harrassing?

I'm not sure whether I would be in favour of restricting hate speech as both arguments are perfectly valid.

Well that depends. Is the speech calling for violence against a particular group of people, then its usually illegal. But in this case, the violence was caused as a reaction to the speech. If you would restrict speech on the basis that the reactions against it are violent, you would give extremists a very easy way to shut up speech they don't like. After all, then all they need to do is cause a riot every time someone says something they don't like. 

 

And surely our police and army exist to keep things from getting out of hand if people really start a riot because they don't like what someone else said? 

 

The real question is what does "freedom of speech" really mean?  Justice Holmes long ago ruled that free speech does not include the right to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theatre (SCOTUS).  One could construe the Prophet baiting of this exhibit was of a similar ilk.

How? Other than that both can have negative consequences. The type of consequences is entirely different. Yelling fire in a crowded theater would result in mass panic that could have deadly consequences. Insulting Muslims with lame cartoons can result in hurt feelings, and some violent extremists may use it as an excuse to act out. Why should we police our behavior just because someone else may use it as an excuse? Surely the responsibility of behaving like a decent human being lies with them, not with everyone else? And if they can't handle that responsibility, we have the police and army to make sure such people cannot harm us. And if they do harm us, we hunt them down and punish them. 

 

And I have a feeling that the court see it like this as well. They have always clearly ruled in favor of free speech, no matter whose speech it is. 

[Meg 368]

 

Surely the responsibility of behaving like a decent human being lies with them, not with everyone else? 

 

 

 

Everyone has the responsibility of behaving like a decent human being.  We are not born knowing how to do this; it must be taught.   Problem is, societies have a vastly different view of what decent human behavior looks like.

 

In most western cultures, we are taught “sticks and stones make break my bones but names will never hurt me”.  If someone calls us names, or draws funny pictures of us, we are expected to act like an adult and shrug it off.    A violent reaction to such things is considered to be juvenile at best and criminal at worst.

 

In other cultures, “honor” is considered to be worth defending with lethal force.    I do not understand this value system well enough to explain it.

 

In most western cultures, people are expected to respect each other’s space and not physically assault each other.    We obviously don’t always live up to this ideal but we know that is what decent human behavior is considered to be.   A significant point:   men are expected to control themselves, whether it is in the presence of some female skin or in the presence of an insult.

 

In other cultures that doesn’t appear to be the case.   Instead of men being expected to control themselves, they control the women.   And consider it to be acceptable to meet insults with deadly force.   To us, the behavior appears to be uncivilized.

 

To other cultures, our behavior can be seen as uncivilized.   Our sense of modesty is relatively non-existent.    We claim to value education but our young adults typically spend their college years in what is arguably debauchery, a concept that barely exists in our society.   Our social order can appear to be very unorganized because no one “knows their place”.   In fact, “knowing ones place” is considered to be an archaic mindset.

 

One person’s comfortable and tidy social structure can be another person’s oppression.  So who gets to decide what constitutes decent human behavior?

[A Nonny Moose 8,263]

Quite right.  The problem is that there is no global set of mores.  Politesse for us is deadly insult to others.  We consider some of the behaviour of members of other cultures to be backward or even barbaric.  We have grown up over some 2000 years from a male-dominant society to one where we at least give serious lip service to equality of the sexes.  We even tolerate what used to be called deviant behaviour in spite of the toxic verses to be found in the book of Leviticus among others. 

 

Many fundamentalists who claim to be Christians cling to the old testament like a professor to tenure not realizing that the new testament completely supersedes it.  The God of Wrath has been replaced by the God of Love.  And this is only in the Judeo/Christian ethic.

 

In our society, we have admitted many other cultures and ethical systems, all of which are law abiding and operate on the "when in Rome" principle.  Some fundamentalists of some religious persuasions want to impose their old country law codes on our society, and one can see how far this has gotten them.  Courts that have ruled on this have ruled against upsetting their own very systems.

 

However, there comes a time when even the loudest barking dog needs to be muzzled.  That point is reached when society in the local area will no longer tolerate such things.  Perhaps we can look on the general society of North America as a local society?

[LexusInfernus 908]

@Meg

Well thats true, but we don't need to concern ourselves about what people in other countries do or think. This is a purely internal matter, given that the gunmen where Americans and the organization was American. Hence, American laws, morals and values apply. 

[Meg 368]

@Meg

Well thats true, but we don't need to concern ourselves about what people in other countries do or think. 

 

 

Well, if that was true, we never would have been in a war overseas.  

 

 

This is a purely internal matter, given that the gunmen where Americans and the organization was American. Hence, American laws, morals and values apply. 

 

Yes, American laws, morals, and value apply.    I do, however, question if anything anywhere is a purely internal matter.   It doesn't seem like it.

[Duke87 1,070]

This is a purely internal matter, given that the gunmen where Americans and the organization was American. Hence, American laws, morals and values apply. 

 

Yes, American laws, morals, and value apply.    I do, however, question if anything anywhere is a purely internal matter.   It doesn't seem like it.

 

Indeed, technology has meant that what people in one culture do is increasingly under scrutiny by people in other cultures. Conflicts due to culture clashes have existed as long as there have been people but today thanks to technology they can easily happen between people on opposite sides of the world.

 

In this case it is a problem because a core value of one culture (freedom of speech) is at direct odds with a core value of another culture (defense of honor in the face of insults). Each culture demands something that the other forbids. Meanwhile compromise is difficult since it is not possible without compromising people's cultural identity. We don't want to give up our free speech any more than they want to give up their forceful defense of honor, but something's gotta give or there will continue to be fighting over this matter.

 

Maybe I'm just overly cynical, but as I said before - there have been conflicts due to conflicting cultures as long as there have been people. Indeed, even just within Muslim culture, there are two groups (Sunni and Shii) that have been at odds with each other for 1500 years. Nothing we can do can possibly stop this. It's an inevitability of living in a heterogeneous world.

[Sabretooth78 808]

Isn't it ironic how their attempts to avoid idolatry have in fact turned into a perverse form of idolatry?

 

If I understand it correctly, this isn't even an original feature in Islam but rather something man created and could therefore altogether be considered a mukaffir.

[Easy Bakes 253]

 

 

Surely the responsibility of behaving like a decent human being lies with them, not with everyone else? 

 

 

 

Everyone has the responsibility of behaving like a decent human being.  We are not born knowing how to do this; it must be taught.   Problem is, societies have a vastly different view of what decent human behavior looks like.

 

In most western cultures, we are taught “sticks and stones make break my bones but names will never hurt me”.  If someone calls us names, or draws funny pictures of us, we are expected to act like an adult and shrug it off.    A violent reaction to such things is considered to be juvenile at best and criminal at worst.

 

In other cultures, “honor” is considered to be worth defending with lethal force.    I do not understand this value system well enough to explain it.

 

In most western cultures, people are expected to respect each other’s space and not physically assault each other.    We obviously don’t always live up to this ideal but we know that is what decent human behavior is considered to be.   A significant point:   men are expected to control themselves, whether it is in the presence of some female skin or in the presence of an insult.

 

In other cultures that doesn’t appear to be the case.   Instead of men being expected to control themselves, they control the women.   And consider it to be acceptable to meet insults with deadly force.   To us, the behavior appears to be uncivilized.

 

To other cultures, our behavior can be seen as uncivilized.   Our sense of modesty is relatively non-existent.    We claim to value education but our young adults typically spend their college years in what is arguably debauchery, a concept that barely exists in our society.   Our social order can appear to be very unorganized because no one “knows their place”.   In fact, “knowing ones place” is considered to be an archaic mindset.

 

One person’s comfortable and tidy social structure can be another person’s oppression.  So who gets to decide what constitutes decent human behavior?

 

thats why I wish they would stop saying they have tolerance for others beliefs and start using Respect instead.

Tolerance  sounds like your just putting up with them  respect sounds more  like you understand them better,

[Meg 368]

 

 

thats why I wish they would stop saying they have tolerance for others beliefs and start using Respect instead.

Tolerance  sounds like your just putting up with them  respect sounds more  like you understand them better,

 

 

 

I take your point but "respect" can be difficult to achieve.    I think it would be great if we could all manage simple politeness.    Mind your manners and don't be rude.   It could go a long way.  But manners, like most values, are relative to the culture.

 

Problem is, it can be difficult to respect religious values, for instance, from the outside.  Some say that people are killing each other because they believe "my invisible friend is better than your invisible friend".   For people who don't believe in invisible friends, this is ridiculous.  For those who believe, that is an offensive thing to say.

[Easy Bakes 253]

yea polite would help

[hym 358]

I am fairly sure that everyone with a British-derived Criminal Code has a section on "inciting to riot" which could be sufficient to cover people who spew hate and exhort people to take inappropriate action.

 

The real question is what does "freedom of speech" really mean?  Justice Holmes long ago ruled that free speech does not include the right to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theatre (SCOTUS).  One could construe the Prophet baiting of this exhibit was of a similar ilk.

 

It is the opinion of the SCOTUS that unless it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that you deliberately attempted to incite a riot, and the riot transpired in the same moment of your deliberate attempt to incite said riot, you cannot be held liable for the riotous actions of others.

 

The fact that you offended someone and that party responded violently is not sufficient to label you as the cause of that party's behavior.

[AkemiAzula 280]

I think it is about time we banned religion. Why allow people to believe untruths? Then again the yanks even write 'in jahweh we trust' on their gold lolz.

Personally i find these monotheistic religions dull and uninspiring. Worshipping some vague entity without definition... yeah. Reckon i shall remain loyal to Firelord Azula.

But if some Texan draws the Firelord in a silly manner do I shoot them? Well if I actually believed Azula or any deity actually had influence in the world obviously that sould be stupid as they would punish wrongdoers in the afterlife.

I believe most religions, upon observing the ruthless march of reason and logical calculations of probability based on observed patterns of material behaviour invent a asgard and underworld concept to justify the weaknesses of midgard, including dissidence and enemy religions.

Thus any truly religious person would not attempt to do their masters work beyond protecting their masters kingdom? The problem is that to a mind that can believe in adam eve leviticus and flying spaghetti monsters it is just as logical a proposition that their god wishes its servants to attack dissidents just as a priest should keep his bidy clean and diet pure etc

Purity is a central theme of pretty much all religion. Thus hatred of other religions is to be expected. However unlike the rational materialistic hate between competing nations diplomatic solutions can never really solve the problem of having opposing beliefs.

Communists and capitalists can grudgingly cooperate due to oil and nuclear threats but two religions can only co exist in a hateful way, as their rivalry is ideological and not rational and scientific.

Isis bulldozed pre islamic buildings. This demonstrates they are not just hungry for lebensraum but for holy war.

What then is the solution to a war betwixt irrational forces? Educate them. Exterminate religion and superstition with a glorious firestorm of education and science. But if I started bombing churches in the name of science i would appear like one of the religious extremists lolz

Thus there is no solution. A war between two hypothetical entities can never in practice be resolved. But the actual matter that is involved can be forced to stop fighting through rational force by government people.

Thus the police and armies keep religious men in check when they begin to complain and this is all you can ever hope to do without actually killing all religious people, an unpopular policy alas...

Meanwhile i just laugh at this stupid world and its stupid inhabitants. That a cartoon coukd provoke violence... It would be funny if it was a tv show snd not real

[Easy Bakes 253]

some newer info on this.

the building this event took place in is owned by the garland tx school district.

so these events are reviewed/debated during public meetings by the school board as to if they want certain events to be held there.

several people spoke out against holding this event here bringing up the possibility of this very thing occurring.

the school board chose to have the event anyway.

[A Nonny Moose 8,263]

Again: A school board is a committee capable of making a decision reflecting an IQ lower than any member of the committee.