Re: Everybody Draw Mohammed Day!

[PoopShoot]

Clearly you missed the point.  What law makes it illegal to deny the holocaust?  There are three newspapers in California (that I have read, maybe there are more) DEDICATED to holocaust denial.  Somehow I don't think your assertion is accurate.

[Byronazriel]

Not everywhere is california, different countries have different laws... Hell, laws vary state to state!

[PoopShoot]

Not everywhere is california, different countries have different laws... Hell, laws vary state to state!

The original implication was that it's illegal in the USA.  With as many skinheads are in your state, I doubt it's illegal there too.  In fact, it's against the first amendment, so I find it highly suspect that it's illegal anywhere in USA.  Also, the different states ARE different countries.

[Intercourseman72]

Not everywhere is california, different countries have different laws... Hell, laws vary state to state!

The original implication was that it's illegal in the USA.  With as many skinheads are in your state, I doubt it's illegal there too.  In fact, it's against the first amendment, so I find it highly suspect that it's illegal anywhere in USA.  Also, the different states ARE different countries.

I didn't imply anything. I said "the west" where there certainly are laws against publically denying the holocaust and where people have been arrested for it.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/u ... 861271.ece
Holocaust deniers tend to be scary and insane people and are likely to be suspect for other crimes, but holocaust denial is still no less illegal in many western countries.

If you actually read my post accurately and were still curious to find out instances where people were arrested and prosecuted under these laws, you could have typed "laws against holocaust denial" in a google search and found this out for yourself. And no, you won't find it illegal in the US. You can get up on a podium at an AIPAC meeting, yell as loud as you can that the holocaust didn't happen, get thrown out of the place, and not even be bothered by the legal authorities. If you do such a thing in say Germany or, I think, in Belgium, it's a different story entirely. Germany and Belgium are still considered "the West" in most people's conception of the West, right?

[PoopShoot]

If you actually read my post accurately...

Had you written it precisely...

[Intercourseman72]

If you actually read my post accurately...

Had you written it precisely...

What part of my post led you to believe that when I said "western countries" that it only meant or only implied the US? Is the US multiple countries and thus means that when I said "western countries" (with an 's' to indicate a plurality of nations) that could have included only the US? I would think that when I pluralize the term "countries" that I mean more than one country. Is this precise enough for you? Or do you need it spelled out more?

[PoopShoot]

Ambiguous "western countries" followed by events in the US.

[Intercourseman72]

Ambiguous "western countries" followed by events in the US.

I fail to see how that means I could have meant that the word "countries" only referred to one nation. Are you seriously that confused with singular and plural tenses?

But anyway, this is the epitome of trolling and diverts the substance of every single point I made in my post to this single misunderstanding you had where you did not understand the difference between 'country' and 'countries'.

No matter how many states the USA acquires throughout its existence, it will never ever be more than one country. It is not 3.846 countries now with 50 states as opposed to when it was only comprised of 13 states. It is still one nation. Are you getting this now? The term pluralized term 'countries' can include the US but must necessarily include at least one other nation because the word 'countries' means that there is at least more than one nation. I can break this down even further if you'd like or if you require it.

Anyway, to re-iterate and sum up the main points of my more substantive post, I merely said it was hypocritical for people in support of "Draw Muhammad Day" to support such an event without showing any inkling or urge to offend Jews, Blacks, or Latinos in the same way with either a deny the holocaust day (where it is illegal in some western nations), call someone a spic day, or call someone a nigger day. I also found it profoundly ironic and hypocritical when people like Thunderf00t said that "yes the people who support the 'mosque at ground zero' deserve the right to build it but also deserve whatever vindication that comes from those who support not having it built." So basically Thunderf00t was like "if you are butthurt over this draw Muhammad day then fuckoff, but if you want this 'mosque' built near ground zero then you have to put up with everyone's vicious opposition to it and I could not only give less of a shit about such responses but also encourage them somewhat". To be fair, Thunderf00t never actually said he wanted people who advocated the community center in Mahattan to be given a hard time, but it is clear he did not care if they did get such a hard time.

[PoopShoot]

this is the epitome of trolling

:yay:  :yay:  
No, it isn't.  Were I trolling, I'd be in line for a ban.

Protip: when you use ambiguous terms and then follow those terms with specific examples that don't apply to the ambiguous terms, misunderstandings happen.  Take an entry-level college English course and you'll find that out for yourself.

No matter how many states the USA acquires throughout its existence, it will never ever be more than one country.

Actually, it's currently fifty countries ("state" has never meant "province", Americans have simply equated the two over time) combined in a single Imperial republic.

I also found it profoundly ironic and hypocritical when people like Thunderf00t said that "yes the people who support the 'mosque at ground zero' deserve the right to build it but also deserve whatever vindication that comes from those who support not having it built." So basically Thunderf00t was like "if you are butthurt over this draw Muhammad day then fuckoff, but if you want this 'mosque' built near ground zero then you have to put up with everyone's vicious opposition to it and I could not only give less of a shit about such responses but also encourage them somewhat". To be fair, Thunderf00t never actually said he wanted people who advocated the community center in Mahattan to be given a hard time, but it is clear he did not care if they did get such a hard time.

Thunderf00t was making separate points.  The point about draw muhammed day was addressing censorship whereas the backlash about building the mosque was in reference to interpersonal interactions.  The former is about government intervention, the latter about accepting that fact that people can be (and often are) douches.  I see no contradiction in that.

[Byronazriel]

With as many skinheads are in your state, I doubt it's illegal there too.

When did Washington gain a skinhead reputation? I thought we were known for angsty alt rock types, and onion farmers.

From what I've seen people tend to be hairier than average... It gets cold up here. I don't know about across the mountains though... But it's like a whole other world over there so maybe.

[Intercourseman72]

this is the epitome of trolling

:yay:  :yay:  
No, it isn't.  Were I trolling, I'd be in line for a ban.

Meh, trolling doesn't always warrant a ban. Just because your trolling for this particular instance won't get you banned, that doesn't mean you weren't trolling.

Protip: when you use ambiguous terms and then follow those terms with specific examples that don't apply to the ambiguous terms, misunderstandings happen.  Take an entry-level college English course and you'll find that out for yourself.

Ambiguous terms that clearly indicate multiple bodies of land outlined and claimed by governmental organizations? When I said countries, how the hell did you come to the conclusion that I meant a single country or that it could mean anything besides multiple countries? Because I pointed to a certain controversy surrounding one particular country meant that I thought the word 'countries' meant a single nation-state? Take an elementary school class where you wouldn't even fit in the desk and have the teacher tell you all about singular and plural nouns. I am sure you will at least get a piece of candy no matter what sorts of things you say to them.

No matter how many states the USA acquires throughout its existence, it will never ever be more than one country.

Actually, it's currently fifty countries ("state" has never meant "province", Americans have simply equated the two over time) combined in a single Imperial republic.

Ok, so Texas, Maine, Nebraska, California, Ohio, West Virginia etc are countries. Take an entry-level college course in government and see if they will accept such idiocy.

I also found it profoundly ironic and hypocritical when people like Thunderf00t said that "yes the people who support the 'mosque at ground zero' deserve the right to build it but also deserve whatever vindication that comes from those who support not having it built." So basically Thunderf00t was like "if you are butthurt over this draw Muhammad day then fuck off, but if you want this 'mosque' built near ground zero then you have to put up with everyone's vicious opposition to it and I could not only give less of a shit about such responses but also encourage them somewhat". To be fair, Thunderf00t never actually said he wanted people who advocated the community center in Mahattan to be given a hard time, but it is clear he did not care if they did get such a hard time.

Thunderf00t was making separate points.  The point about draw Muhammad day was addressing censorship whereas the backlash about building the mosque was in reference to interpersonal interactions.  The former is about government intervention, the latter about accepting that fact that people can be (and often are) douches.  I see no contradiction in that.

Don't attempts to prevent the construction of a community center despite legitimate purchase of land and co-operation with ordinance laws hinder their right to freedom of expression? Thunderf00t thought it was just fine for everyone to deliberately insult Muslims (whoever he thinks they may be) by drawing Muhammad and that 'The Muslims' should just deal with it because they have no entitlement to retaliate for being offended (which they don't), but 'The Muslims' should still have to deal with whatever comes their way with this Park 51 ordeal. Maybe if Thunderf00t thought people who participated in Draw Muhammad deserved any sort of response directed towards them it would be even steven, but otherwise, I see him as being hypocritical.
And btw, the former (draw hawmid day) was not about government intervention. It was about violent outrage by certain people. That was his beef with Muslims and others who were against it. That if you were against Draw Muhammad Day that would were cowering to 'The Muslims' because you did not deliberately offend them. Yet he saw the building of a community center near ground zero as an offensive gesture against the US and "western culture" and that it deserved any response it got (except perhaps unlawful ones by US definitions).

[PoopShoot]

Meh, trolling doesn't always warrant a ban. Just because your trolling for this particular instance won't get you banned, that doesn't mean you weren't trolling.

If I were trolling, I'd have done something banworthy.  You must be new to the internet.

Ok, so Texas, Maine, Nebraska, California, Ohio, West Virginia etc are countries. Take an entry-level college course in government and see if they will accept such idiocy.

And when you ask what makes them fundamentally different from a country within an empire, you will get a blank stare.  American nationalism has caused too many of us to think in terms of "one nation, indivisible" to admit the fact that we are the last remaining empire on the planet.   Oh, and it was in an entry level college course on western civilization that this was pointed out to me by the professor.

Don't attempts to prevent the construction of a community center despite legitimate purchase of land and co-operation with ordinance laws hinder their right to freedom of expression? Thunderf00t thought it was just fine for everyone to deliberately insult Muslims (whoever he thinks they may be) by drawing Muhammad and that 'The Muslims' should just deal with it because they have no entitlement to retaliate for being offended (which they don't), but 'The Muslims' should still have to deal with whatever comes their way with this Park 51 ordeal.

Yes, and it's PEOPLE who are trying to do have it prevented.  The government has only had to step in to prevent the citizens from doing something stupid.  The attempted abridgement of freedom wasn't begun at the governmental level.

[Byronazriel]

Yeah, a lot of people forget that higher learning is ALL about taking simple things and making them rediculously complex.

[PoopShoot]

Yeah, a lot of people forget that higher learning is ALL about taking simple things and making them rediculously complex.

Yeah.  Like spelling.

 

[Byronazriel]

Darn them I's that sound like E's!