Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Who Defends Our Right to Free Speech?
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Glocktogo" data-source="post: 1910741" data-attributes="member: 1132"><p>You don't get it. If you mishandle an inanimate object or non-rational organism, then you bear the responsibility. If you insult a rational being and they strike out in violence, you're guilty of being stupid, but that does not make you responsible for their reaction. If you believe the filmmaker is responsible for the resulting violent reaction, then you're ipso-facto admitting that those who committed the violence are not rational beings. Subhuman if you were. </p><p></p><p>In other words, you can stampede cattle or incite dogs to fight and you're responsible. If you cause frightened movie patrons to trample each other in fear by yelling fire in a crowded theater, thereby creating an imminent danger where there was none, you're responsible. If you anger people half a world away, you are not responsible for their reactions, they are.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>It is reasonable to be angry when insulted. It is not reasonable to commit acts of vandalism and violence when insulted. We have a word for people in this country who do that. They're called criminals. By attempting to hold the filmmaker responsible, you're drawing a moral equivalency between free speech and murder. That is not rational in any sense of the word. We can condemn the act of making the movie, but we dare not condemn the man for exercising his right of free speech.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>No, he doesn't. The filmmaker did not break any laws within the jurisdiction he's in (he violated the terms of his parole, but the act of making the film is not criminal). The rioters did. They are 100% responsible for their actions. I think you're confusing responsibility with socially unacceptable. Preaching intolerance is unacceptable. It is not criminal. Without mutual respect, there is no respect. They do not respect our rights, therefore they cannot expect us to automatically respect their beliefs. </p><p></p><p>If I had my way, there would be a caricature of Mohamed on the front page of every secular media outlet and webpage in the world tomorrow morning, along with a statement that they cannot kill all of us. If they want respect, they need to earn it. So far, they have not . <img src="/images/smilies/frown.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":(" title="Frown :(" data-shortname=":(" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Glocktogo, post: 1910741, member: 1132"] You don't get it. If you mishandle an inanimate object or non-rational organism, then you bear the responsibility. If you insult a rational being and they strike out in violence, you're guilty of being stupid, but that does not make you responsible for their reaction. If you believe the filmmaker is responsible for the resulting violent reaction, then you're ipso-facto admitting that those who committed the violence are not rational beings. Subhuman if you were. In other words, you can stampede cattle or incite dogs to fight and you're responsible. If you cause frightened movie patrons to trample each other in fear by yelling fire in a crowded theater, thereby creating an imminent danger where there was none, you're responsible. If you anger people half a world away, you are not responsible for their reactions, they are. It is reasonable to be angry when insulted. It is not reasonable to commit acts of vandalism and violence when insulted. We have a word for people in this country who do that. They're called criminals. By attempting to hold the filmmaker responsible, you're drawing a moral equivalency between free speech and murder. That is not rational in any sense of the word. We can condemn the act of making the movie, but we dare not condemn the man for exercising his right of free speech. No, he doesn't. The filmmaker did not break any laws within the jurisdiction he's in (he violated the terms of his parole, but the act of making the film is not criminal). The rioters did. They are 100% responsible for their actions. I think you're confusing responsibility with socially unacceptable. Preaching intolerance is unacceptable. It is not criminal. Without mutual respect, there is no respect. They do not respect our rights, therefore they cannot expect us to automatically respect their beliefs. If I had my way, there would be a caricature of Mohamed on the front page of every secular media outlet and webpage in the world tomorrow morning, along with a statement that they cannot kill all of us. If they want respect, they need to earn it. So far, they have not . :( [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Who Defends Our Right to Free Speech?
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom
