| For fuck's sake...I don't own a damn shop. IT WAS A HYPOTHETICAL EXAMPLE Explain how my beliefs are Xenophobic? I'm really looking forward to this one. After your argument collapsed you seem to have decided to try and turn this into a discussion about how xenophobic I am. Nice going. I Introduced the dichotomy of "them" and "us" because it's particularly pertinent to this thread, it's also very pertinent to the sweeping statement you made earlier, live with it. |
apatch3May 20, 2013 2:22 PM
| Hint: I don't get offended when someone tells me God can't be drawn, or Steins;Gate sucks. That's because, unlike you, I accept that there is a multitude of opinions in this world no matter how stupid they may be. I do not feel victimized because someone else tells me they hate an anime that I like. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
katsucats said: Hint: I don't get offended when someone tells me God can't be drawn, or Steins;Gate sucks. That's because, unlike you, I accept that there is a multitude of opinions in this world no matter how stupid they may be. I do not feel victimized because someone else tells me they hate an anime that I like. I said, I get slightly ticked off, I feel a slight tinge of unease and then move on with my life I recognize that people are entitled to their own beliefs.. I do not feel victimized by people's opinions. You've just projected all this nonsense onto me. How does the above even remotely relate to xenophobia? You've called me a xenophobe, back it up? My father was a squadron leader in the British Air Force, I'm a Law Student, I've done my fair share of charity work, I live with students of all races and all nationalities, how on Earth am I a xenophobe? I'm a xenophobe because I think it's disrespectful to draw intentionally inflammatory cartoons? |
apatch3 said: This "argument" started with your post:After your argument collapsed you seem to have decided to try and turn this into a discussion about how xenophobic I am. Nice going. apatch3 said: "You religious people" - was this aimed at me? Which I replied: katsucats said: That's aimed at every religious person that finds it disrespectful when someone does something that violates their own tradition, even when unintended, whether they riot or not. My next post was tautology, anyone with 3rd grade reading ability could easily tell that I was saying the same thing: katsucats said: It's just xenophobic to expect everyone to prescribe to your own tradition, and actually be offended by it. Now pray tell, which was the argument that fell apart? |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
| I think your argument just crashed and burned...your definition of a xenophobe is rather wide, in fact it includes most of humanity. Most people find it disrespectful when people try to insult them. (that doesn't mean they form raging mobs and cause havoc) As I said earlier there's a huge distinction to be made between the two, if you're not going to make it then that's your problem but I imagine most level headed people agree with me. Whatever great moral high-ground you think you stand on, blurring the issue with "them"" and "us" nonsense plays into the hands of extremists. |
apatch3May 20, 2013 2:34 PM
| This is religiously insensitive. I'm against it. There are other ways to protest. |
apatch3 said: It's exactly the same as far as I'm concerned. Anger is sourced in fear. You feel that other people's opinions and actions infringes on your well-being when in actuality they have nothing to do with you. This comes from that you think your opinions and traditions override other people's, and that they were in the wrong for merely contradicting you. Why else would you feel "offended" that someone drew a picture of Muhammad, if you truly recognized his right to action on the same level that you recognize your beliefs?I said, I get slightly ticked off, I feel a slight tinge of unease and then move on with my life I recognize that people are entitled to their own beliefs.. I do not feel victimized by people's opinions. You've just projected all this nonsense onto me. How does the above even remotely relate to xenophobia? You've called me a xenophobe, back it up? apatch3 said: No, you're a xenophobe because you find yourself victim to any depiction of Muhammad regardless of intent.My father was a squadron leader in the British Air Force, I'm a Law Student, I've done my fair share of charity work, I live with students of all races and all nationalities, how on Earth am I a xenophobe? I'm a xenophobe because I think it's disrespectful to draw intentionally inflammatory cartoons? |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
apatch3 said: It is always easier to jump to conclusions when you aren't interested in confronting yourself.I think your argument just crashed and burned...your definition of a xenophobe is rather wide, in fact it includes most of humanity. apatch3 said: The protesters, and certainly the original cartoons were never meant to personally insult. You find them insulting because you find the mere contradiction of ideas insulting.Most people find it disrespectful when people try to insult them. (that doesn't mean they form raging mobs and cause havoc) apatch3 said: "Them" and "us" is a dichotomy you created, not I. And it's a false dichotomy. The existence of terrorists do not absolve you from the responsibility of your own beliefs.As I said earlier there's a huge distinction to be made between the two, if you're not going to make it then that's your problem but I imagine most level headed people agree with me. Whatever great moral high-ground you think you stand on, blurring the issue with "them"" and "us" nonsense plays into the hands of extremists. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
| Right...again, extremely wide definition of xenophobia xen·o·phobe (zn-fb, zn-) n. A person unduly fearful or contemptuous of that which is foreign, especially of strangers or foreign peoples. I find depictions of Muhammad objectionable first and foremost because they will end up in Al-Qaeda training brochures, and while you sit comfortably in your armchair, people are actually being killed by Al-Qaeda, innocent people, including average Joe Muslims many more of whom fall victim to them every day. I think it's disrespectful to do something that you know and intend to be inflammatory in the name of "freedom". I think it's incredibly disrespectful to then paint the very people who are dying and having their livelihoods destroyed by these rioters and extremists in the same colour as their assailants simply because the average religious person doesn't like it when people attack his religion. Why do you keep bringing this back to me mate, I drink, I smoke, I'm about the least observing Muslim you can find. I'm not going to stop being friends with somebody if they draw a bloody cartoon, doesn't mean I have to approve of it. The very fact that you're arguing with me here shows that you hold your own opinions in some sort of esteem (as most people do) you're bothered/offended that you can't justify your redefinition of xenophobia and feel you have to waste your own time defending it. I don't think people are offended "regardless of intent" it's the intent that incites them. If somebody were to draw a depiction of Muhammad with absolutely no knowledge that it was frowned upon, say a child were to draw it, nobody would be offended. |
apatch3May 20, 2013 2:45 PM
katsucats said: "Them" and "us" is a dichotomy you created, not I. And it's a false dichotomy. The existence of terrorists do not absolve you from the responsibility of your own beliefs. No..you created it by saying "you religious people need to understand we can't play by your rules" - I simply pointed out that you were using the whole "them" and "us" dichotomy after you had said it. |
apatch3 said: Well, as I said in my first post in this thread that I'd be willing to support the protests only because I find it humorous that people like you and yhunata contrive any argument to make yourselves victims even when no such thing was even remotely being said. Have fun drowning in your own sorrows...I think it's incredibly disrespectful to then paint the very people who are dying and having their livelihoods destroyed by these rioters and extremists in the same colour as their assailants simply because the average religious person doesn't like it when people attack his religion. Just because you see a differing of opinions as a personal attack on your values, and you ascribe this differing of opinions to be sourced from xenophobes playing into the hands of extremists. In other words, you shift the responsibility for your own xenophobic beliefs and predicament entirely to others. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
| Again, I'm not a xenophobe, you can take your redefinition of xenophobia (which is so wide that you yourself fall into it) and shove off. When you make sweeping statements, you are playing into the hands of extremists, you yourself have proven that you're an extremist by alleging that everyone who is the least bit offended by anything is a xenophobe, I'd call that an extreme belief. Your indifference to people's sorrows doesn't surprise me, you have absolutely no idea what people go through, and you'll callously defend your own moral high-ground to the end, even if it means defending sheer ignorance. |
apatch3 said: Here it is in context, and I stand by it:katsucats said: No..you created it by saying "you religious people need to understand we can't play by your rules" - I simply pointed out that you were using the whole "them" and "us" dichotomy after you had said it."Them" and "us" is a dichotomy you created, not I. And it's a false dichotomy. The existence of terrorists do not absolve you from the responsibility of your own beliefs. katsucats said: That's aimed at every religious person that finds it disrespectful when someone does something that violates their own tradition, even when unintended, whether they riot or not. I put these people in the same category as people who are offended by Chinese cartoons, whether they riot or not. As you see in the post, I compared xenophobic religious people to xenophobic non-religious people. So the only real dichotomy here is xenophobes and non-xenophobes. Now you could claim that you are not offended by a depiction of Muhammad, which would then call into question why you got offended when I declared that people who are offended by a depiction of Muhammad should realize that they own their own anger. The fact of you being offended by my assertion means to me 1 of 3 things: 1. You actually are offended, despite your claims otherwise. 2. You're an apologist for people who are offended. 3. You just wanted to start an argument for no reason. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
apatch3 said: Straw man, unless by "anything" you mean "any opinion that has jack to do with you personally". Quit putting the crutch on extremists. They're a problem in this world, but by no means the only problem. Don't think that as long as you group yourself with moderates, you're good to go no matter what; that somehow moderates are pristine, faultless, and their beliefs can't be challenged.When you make sweeping statements, you are playing into the hands of extremists, you yourself have proven that you're an extremist by alleging that everyone who is the least bit offended by anything is a xenophobe, I'd call that an extreme belief. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
| I am only standing up for people who are offended (everybody has the right to be offended by or take a moral stance on an issue that is internal to themselves), but choose to live with it in the spirit of tolerance. I am distinguishing them from religious extremists, I believe this is an incredibly important distinction to make should we wish to eliminate religious extremism (and thereby further liberal values). You're putting both of them in the same category (by alleging that being offended is a though-crime), I'm telling you that this plays into the hands of right wing extremists. You don't have to agree with me, but you've called me a Xenophobe with absolutely no justification other than a grossly twisted re-definition of the term. You've constantly tried to make this about me, (ad hominem) and now you're once again doing what you're best at presenting people with black and white categories. It's either black or white, 1, 2 or 3. In any event I concede that I have been unable to completely extricate emotion from my argument, this is because the subject matter has played a big role in my life. I'm pretty sure we've both said what we've had to say. Let's agree to disagree. katsucats said: Don't think that as long as you group yourself with moderates, you're good to go no matter what; that somehow moderates are pristine, faultless, and their beliefs can't be challenged. You can go on attacking moderates if you feel that's the best course of action here. |
apatch3May 20, 2013 3:13 PM
katsucats said: apatch3 said: Here it is in context, and I stand by it:katsucats said: No..you created it by saying "you religious people need to understand we can't play by your rules" - I simply pointed out that you were using the whole "them" and "us" dichotomy after you had said it."Them" and "us" is a dichotomy you created, not I. And it's a false dichotomy. The existence of terrorists do not absolve you from the responsibility of your own beliefs. katsucats said: That's aimed at every religious person that finds it disrespectful when someone does something that violates their own tradition, even when unintended, whether they riot or not. I put these people in the same category as people who are offended by Chinese cartoons, whether they riot or not. As you see in the post, I compared xenophobic religious people to xenophobic non-religious people. So the only real dichotomy here is xenophobes and non-xenophobes. Now you could claim that you are not offended by a depiction of Muhammad, which would then call into question why you got offended when I declared that people who are offended by a depiction of Muhammad should realize that they own their own anger. The fact of you being offended by my assertion means to me 1 of 3 things: 1. You actually are offended, despite your claims otherwise. 2. You're an apologist for people who are offended. 3. You just wanted to start an argument for no reason. You seem to like using a lot of big words but I don't think you know what they mean. apatch3 seems to have his own reasons for opposing this but you insist on misrepresenting them by making groundless statement on why you think he really opposes this. apatch3 has said nothing xenophobic in the whole thread. Your insistence on associating him with xenophobia is just like muslims crying racism and islamophobia when anyone ever says anything against them. |
apatch3 said: Mere knowledge of it being frowned upon is not enough to prove intent to insult. No so-called Average Joe would think that all comedians and people who draw caricatures are personally insulting. Here is the fundamental problem: your xenophobia shifts the divide between interpersonal responsibility from somewhere in the middle where it is by default to all the way in front of other people's big toes, such that the moment someone steps out and contradicts your world view, they become automatically personally insulting to you and responsible for it. What you don't understand is that your rights stop an inch from your toes and not everyone else's.I don't think people are offended "regardless of intent" it's the intent that incites them. If somebody were to draw a depiction of Muhammad with absolutely no knowledge that it was frowned upon, say a child were to draw it, nobody would be offended. Your determination to be insulted is yours alone. If you're insulted by cats, my choice to keep a cat even if I know it is personally insulting to you is not the same as an intent to insult. If you are insulted because I have a cat and you hate cats, then you hate and fear things that don't fit into your world view -- a xenophobe. This is different than if I kept a cat for the sole purpose of insulting you. But then again, none of the protesters are doing so for the sole purpose of insulting you (or at least that's not the stated purpose, and any such purpose must be interpreted). If you find it insulting that people express their beliefs despite knowing that there are people who disagree with them, then you're a xenophobe -- by the standard definition of the word. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
Rebas said: Like...?katsucats said: You seem to like using a lot of big words but I don't think you know what they mean. apatch3 said: Here it is in context, and I stand by it:katsucats said: No..you created it by saying "you religious people need to understand we can't play by your rules" - I simply pointed out that you were using the whole "them" and "us" dichotomy after you had said it."Them" and "us" is a dichotomy you created, not I. And it's a false dichotomy. The existence of terrorists do not absolve you from the responsibility of your own beliefs. katsucats said: That's aimed at every religious person that finds it disrespectful when someone does something that violates their own tradition, even when unintended, whether they riot or not. I put these people in the same category as people who are offended by Chinese cartoons, whether they riot or not. As you see in the post, I compared xenophobic religious people to xenophobic non-religious people. So the only real dichotomy here is xenophobes and non-xenophobes. Now you could claim that you are not offended by a depiction of Muhammad, which would then call into question why you got offended when I declared that people who are offended by a depiction of Muhammad should realize that they own their own anger. The fact of you being offended by my assertion means to me 1 of 3 things: 1. You actually are offended, despite your claims otherwise. 2. You're an apologist for people who are offended. 3. You just wanted to start an argument for no reason. apatch3 seems to have his own reasons for opposing this but you insist on misrepresenting them by making groundless statement on why you think he really opposes this. The irony...apatch3 has said nothing xenophobic in the whole thread. Your insistence on associating him with xenophobia is just like muslims crying racism and islamophobia when anyone ever says anything against them. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
| You seem to have mistaken my stance as one that supports some sort of knee-jerk offence response. I don't know where you got this from, it's regrettable that such a response exists, but in recognition of it, certain actions must be taken. Certainly, the decision to be insulted, is mine alone, I recognize this and I wish that the rioters who cause all this nonsense would too, the world would be a better place without religious zealots trying to use every single notional insult as an excuse for violent revolution. When I'm "insulted" - all it really means is I smirk at the whole thing, lower my opinion of the people who have resorted to that sort of humour and move on with my life. When extremists are insulted they go on a rampage - which is completely their own fault - what a bunch of goons, they also fail to realize that by doing so they draw more attention to what would have been a minor issue, forgotten about the very next day. In any event, not everybody has to subscribe to your sense of humour either, there are certain forms of humour that I find to be in bad taste precisely because they're inflammatory, the same goes for racial jokes, or jokes about women. Yes people choose to be offended by them, but so many people are offended by them that it makes sense not to make them. I will add that at law, if you know something might be dishonest or provocative by ordinary standards, then you yourself intend to be provocative/dishonest even if you yourself do not share those standards. This is called inferred intent, it's quite apparent here You draw a picture knowing that a vast swathe of people will react violently to it. |
apatch3May 20, 2013 3:36 PM
katsucats said: Rebas said: Like...?katsucats said: You seem to like using a lot of big words but I don't think you know what they mean. apatch3 said: Here it is in context, and I stand by it:katsucats said: No..you created it by saying "you religious people need to understand we can't play by your rules" - I simply pointed out that you were using the whole "them" and "us" dichotomy after you had said it."Them" and "us" is a dichotomy you created, not I. And it's a false dichotomy. The existence of terrorists do not absolve you from the responsibility of your own beliefs. katsucats said: That's aimed at every religious person that finds it disrespectful when someone does something that violates their own tradition, even when unintended, whether they riot or not. I put these people in the same category as people who are offended by Chinese cartoons, whether they riot or not. As you see in the post, I compared xenophobic religious people to xenophobic non-religious people. So the only real dichotomy here is xenophobes and non-xenophobes. Now you could claim that you are not offended by a depiction of Muhammad, which would then call into question why you got offended when I declared that people who are offended by a depiction of Muhammad should realize that they own their own anger. The fact of you being offended by my assertion means to me 1 of 3 things: 1. You actually are offended, despite your claims otherwise. 2. You're an apologist for people who are offended. 3. You just wanted to start an argument for no reason. katsucats said: If you are insulted because I have a cat and you hate cats, then you hate and fear things that don't fit into your world view -- a xenophobe. As I thought you don't know what the word means. katsucats said: apatch3 seems to have his own reasons for opposing this but you insist on misrepresenting them by making groundless statement on why you think he really opposes this. The irony...apatch3 has said nothing xenophobic in the whole thread. Your insistence on associating him with xenophobia is just like muslims crying racism and islamophobia when anyone ever says anything against them. Another word that you don't know the meaning of, eh? |
Monad said: It's not about provoking them But it is provoking them. Do you not think your message "you can't use violence to push your own views on everyone" would get misconstrued as "I can draw Muhammad If I like, U mad?". You might think both are the same but the latter is extremely childish and weakens your entire "protest". I'd assume (I'd hope) if you were on a plane and someone asked you to keep it down they're trying to read/the baby is sleeping you wouldn't yell at the top of your lungs for the sake of exercising your freedom of speech. |
Rebas said: No substance. You have something against me, but you can't explain it in a way that makes sense. I get it.As I thought you don't know what the word means. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
I SUCK at drawing but whatever: |
| i got an idea: let's love and tolerate the shit out of each other |
 |
| Damn guys, I don't see any drawings. Please get back on topic. |
apatch3 said: Hmmm... ordinary standards. Wonder what that means?I will add that at law, if you know something might be dishonest or provocative by ordinary standards, then you yourself intend to be provocative/dishonest even if you yourself do not share those standards. This is called inferred intent, it's quite apparent here You draw a picture knowing that a vast swathe of people will react violently to it. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
katsucats said: Rebas said: No substance. You have something against me, but you can't explain it in a way that makes sense. I get it.As I thought you don't know what the word means. Don't turn your own bullshit into me. |
Baman said: Damn guys, I don't see any drawings. Please get back on topic. ^thanks Baman....you made my picture looke even worse... :( |
Baman said: best one yetDamn guys, I don't see any drawings. Please get back on topic. |
|
JustALEX said: I kind of cheated though.^thanks Baman....you made my picture looke even worse... :( |
Battlechili1 said: This is religiously insensitive. I'm against it. There are other ways to protest. |
katsucats said: apatch3 said: Hmmm... ordinary standards. Wonder what that means?I will add that at law, if you know something might be dishonest or provocative by ordinary standards, then you yourself intend to be provocative/dishonest even if you yourself do not share those standards. This is called inferred intent, it's quite apparent here You draw a picture knowing that a vast swathe of people will react violently to it. Well, good luck trying to redefine the ordinary standards of reasonable and honest men. I really don't think drawing Muhammad pictures in order to elicit a reaction or prove some point about freedom in the knowledge that many people will take offence is something a reasonable honest man would do. Clearly the hypothetical defendant here, intends to be provocative, I would take this case on a no win no fee basis. What do you say about my point about sexist or racist jokes? If I were to make a joke about women, or black people - I think that would be provocative, even though the joke isn't directed at anybody "personally". The people who are offended by it choose to be offended, but it's still pretty damn provocative. |
apatch3 said: So you admit that you are apologizing for people who are offended by the actions of someone else that have nothing to do with them, and have no particular intent to insult?I am only standing up for people who are offended (everybody has the right to be offended by or take a moral stance on an issue that is internal to themselves), but choose to live with it in the spirit of tolerance. apatch3 said: This is irrelevant to my point.I am distinguishing them from religious extremists, I believe this is an incredibly important distinction to make should we wish to eliminate religious extremism (and thereby further liberal values). apatch3 said: "Crime" is a legal word. Mine is not a legal argument. You can say I'm putting the 2 in the same category only by mere virtue that this dichotomy has nothing to do with anything I'm saying.You're putting both of them in the same category (by alleging that being offended is a though-crime), I'm telling you that this plays into the hands of right wing extremists. apatch3 said: Not at all, but at this point, I wouldn't hold it to you to understand it.You don't have to agree with me, but you've called me a Xenophobe with absolutely no justification other than a grossly twisted re-definition of the term. apatch3 said: You don't even know what ad hominem means: ad hominem dismisses an argument by use of reasoning that has nothing to do with the argument, and I've dismissed no arguments at all.You've constantly tried to make this about me, (ad hominem) and now you're once again doing what you're best at apatch3 said: All arguments start out with the agreement that there is a disagreement, but I will agree that this is a waste of time.presenting people with black and white categories. It's either black or white, 1, 2 or 3. In any event I concede that I have been unable to completely extricate emotion from my argument, this is because the subject matter has played a big role in my life. I'm pretty sure we've both said what we've had to say. Let's agree to disagree. apatch3 said: Once again, the modest/extremist distinction is irrelevant to anything I said, except when you brought it up as a defense.katsucats said: You can go on attacking moderates if you feel that's the best course of action here. Don't think that as long as you group yourself with moderates, you're good to go no matter what; that somehow moderates are pristine, faultless, and their beliefs can't be challenged. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
katsucats said: So you admit that you are apologizing for people who are offended by the actions of someone else that have nothing to do with them, and have no particular intent to insult? I'm inferring intent to insult here, yes (that's what we've just been discussing) I think it's reasonable to infer intent where you know something is going to be provocative, whether or not you personally think it SHOULD be provocative. katsucats said: Yes I know, you've decided that it's irrelevant because you want to ignore this issue. This is irrelevant to my point. You say you've dismissed no arguments - yet in the same post you've just dismissed an argument XD. Refer back to your first post katsucats said: Now I'm going to say fuck it and protest away, andlet these motherfuckers drown in the sorrows of their self-victimhood. I think you've demonstrated a considerable amount of prejudice with your language alone. It's clear that you're the one trying to force values onto people, nobody else here thinks I'm a xenophobe, or thinks that anybody who remotely takes offence at anything is a xenophobe because they're trying to force their values onto people. Women who take offence at sexist jokes Black people who take offence at racist jokes ^Yeah total xenophobes. Sexist Jokes and Racist Jokes have no "personal" targets, but I think the above categories are completely justified in the - self-created offence- they take from them. |
apatch3May 20, 2013 5:06 PM
apatch3 said: Not me. You.katsucats said: Well, good luck trying to redefine the ordinary standards of reasonable and honest men. apatch3 said: Hmmm... ordinary standards. Wonder what that means?I will add that at law, if you know something might be dishonest or provocative by ordinary standards, then you yourself intend to be provocative/dishonest even if you yourself do not share those standards. This is called inferred intent, it's quite apparent here You draw a picture knowing that a vast swathe of people will react violently to it. apatch3 said: There are jokes that are meant to be provocative to be funny, and jokes that are meant to be provocative to anger. And while some cartoons on Muhammad have been commissioned to incite anger, this is not necessarily the case generally, and so for someone to be personally offended by a non-inciting depiction of Muhammad is just as extremely childish as those who choose to write for the purpose of offense.What do you say about my point about sexist or racist jokes? If I were to make a joke about women, or black people - I think that would be provocative, even though the joke isn't directed at anybody "personally". The people who are offended by it choose to be offended, but it's still pretty damn provocative. Ditto for women or black people. If they watch a stand up comedy program and feel seething anger, then they either simply lack the proper faculties to understand context or they take themselves too seriously. The latter can be a hypocrisy in itself, but it is far more so when you shift the eligibility of offense to the other extreme and call any depiction of Muhammad, even if it were one of a honorable man in a robe, "offensive". |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
| I think Draw Muhammad day is meant to anger. I don't find it funny, like I said, I've seen what can happen as a result of these things first hand, I'm less inclined to find it funny than most people here are I mentioned this right at the start of the thread. I've already agreed with you that reactionary stances to issues like this are extremely childish and misplaced, I've said this numerous times. Doesn't change the fact that those stances exist, and you're not making them any better by doing this, instead you're helping the right wing recruit more people, and consolidate political power in countries where one would hope the international community's goals are to prevent this from happening. (You're also making the lives of moderates a living hell). Now you can say "oh but it isn't our fault it's the extremists fault for reacting that way" yes, from a moral standpoint it is, but from a practical standpoint your actions are still Bullshit. When that Pastor burned the Quran president Obama himself had to declare that he disapproved of such actions - because of all the shit it was creating for US troops. Things like this are counterproductive. As I continually suggested to you earlier, you've put your own moral high-ground ahead of practical reality. While you don't deserve ALL the blame, you share a degree of blame for every single soldier killed, and every single innocent slaughtered as a result of your knowing incitement to hatred. Every time your drawing flies around on an AL-Qaeda brochure - you drew it - not Bin Laden. |
apatch3May 20, 2013 4:23 PM
apatch3 said: I've already covered this in previous posts, so point proven I guess? You find cartoons to be personally offensive, and I find the fact that you're offended to be extremely immature because you are unconsciously broadcasting to the world that things that have nothing to do with you hurt you personally. You are also suggesting that merely knowing that you'd be offended is enough to prove intent of offense, no matter how asinine and ridiculous that source of offense is, such as the depiction of Muhammad. As an analogy, you'd find it offensive should couples express their homosexuality in front of devout Christians --if you were a Christian-- even if that expression has nothing to do with you. You find the mere expression of values contrary to yours offensive.katsucats said: I'm inferring intent to insult here, yes (that's what we've just been discussing) I think it's reasonable to infer intent where you know something is going to be provocative, whether or not you personally think it SHOULD be provocative. So you admit that you are apologizing for people who are offended by the actions of someone else that have nothing to do with them, and have no particular intent to insult? apatch3 said: You know what else is irrelevant to my point? Global warming. So yes, as far as this conversation goes, I also want to ignore global warming, but don't call me a global warming denier just yet.katsucats said: Yes I know, you've decided that it's irrelevant because you want to ignore this issue. This is irrelevant to my point. apatch3 said: You mean the "argument" that I'm using ad hominem when you don't know what ad hominem means -- that argument? The funny thing is that I didn't say that the accusation is valid because you're too extreme...You say you've dismissed no arguments - yet in the same post you've just dismissed an argument XD. apatch3 said: Prejudice against self-pitying xenophobes, yes. You caught me on that one.Refer back to your first post katsucats said: I think you've demonstrated a considerable amount of prejudice with your language alone. Now I'm going to say fuck it and protest away, and let these motherfuckers drown in the sorrows of their self-victimhood. apatch3 said: Which values? If you mean values of responsibility for your own emotions, then you might be right.It's clear that you're the one trying to force values onto people, nobody else here thinks I'm a xenophobe, or thinks that anybody who remotely takes offence at anything is a xenophobe because they're trying to force their values onto people. apatch3 said: How about women who take offense at a depiction of another woman?Women who take offence at sexist jokes Black people who take offence at racist jokes ^Yeah total xenophobes. Sexist Jokes and Racist Jokes have no "personal" targets, but I think the above categories are completely justified in the - self-created offence- they take from them. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
katsucats said: I've already covered this in previous posts, so point proven I guess? You find cartoons to be personally offensive, and I find the fact that you're offended to be extremely immature because you are unconsciously broadcasting to the world that things that have nothing to do with you hurt you personally. You are also suggesting that merely knowing that you'd be offended is enough to prove intent of offense, no matter how asinine and ridiculous that source of offense is, such as the depiction of Muhammad. As an analogy, you'd find it offensive should couples express their homosexuality in front of devout Christians --if you were a Christian-- even if that expression has nothing to do with you. You find the mere expression of values contrary to yours offensive. Since when was I broadcasting anything to the world, I've said over and over that the correct response in such a situation is to ignore it, even if you find it offensive, that's what tolerance is all about. I don't think crying foul in such a scenario is logical or proper, in the same sense that a Christian may disapprove of Gay marriage and has every right to disapprove and be offended by it - his rights END at stopping gay people from getting married or denying them jobs. It's called the Harm Principle (HLA Hart) you're free to act as long as your actions don't interfere with somebody else's rights. Being subjectively offended is an internal mental state, you have no right to pass judgement on such a person unless they ACT in a way that interferes with the rights of a cartoonist.* You say my point about terrorism is irrelevant Umm..with respect, no it isn't it's central to a discussion like this. Please choose a different venue that doesn't play with people's lives to start enforcing your whole "moral policing" about taking responsibility for your own actions. *If you take your moral policing any further than this - then you're being illiberal as I asserted ages ago. I made a thread about this new breed of liberal fascism a month ago, I think people like you have effectively turned liberalism into something it was never supposed to be. By all means continue calling people self-pitying xenophobes oh great liberal champion. |
apatch3May 20, 2013 4:41 PM
apatch3 said: It is not central to the post that you objected to that started this argument.You say my point about terrorism is irrelevant Umm..with respect, no it isn't it's central to a discussion like this. apatch3 said: You seem to be confused about something. I'm expressing my amusement of your belief that your right to anger takes moral precedent to other people's right to draw. I have no intention of morally policing anyone like you do.Please choose a different venue that doesn't play with people's lives to start enforcing your whole "moral policing" about taking responsibility for your own actions. *If you take your moral policing any further than this - then you're being illiberal as I asserted ages ago. Despite your thread a few weeks ago, I'm starting to question whether you know what "liberal" actually means. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
| Since when do I intend to police anyone? I'm only telling people that if they incite hatred they fall into the hands of extremists, I'm not for a second suggesting a ban on images and depictions of Muhammad. Nor am I approving of the childish actions of right wing extremists. Justify yourself before you throw allegations at people? Where have I suggested I want to morally police anybody? You're the one who's treating this as moral policing because you want to "let those motherfuckers get what's coming to them for being self-pitying xenophobes" The whole concept of drawing pictures that offend somebody else's sensibilities, simply because you think those sensibilities are misplaced is in effect forcing your morals on people. In any event, I will re-iterate I have no intention of prohibiting any sort of conduct. |
apatch3May 20, 2013 4:48 PM
apatch3 said: You're like the right-wingers who have shifted the political scale so far to the right that my centrism now looks extreme. Who knew? That drawing something is now morally policing. Muslims are defining morality. It's 2013. Looks like I gotta get with the program.You're the one whose treating this as moral policing because you want to "let those motherfuckers get what's coming to them for being self-pitying xenophobes" The whole concept of drawing pictures that offend somebody else's sensibilities, simply because you think those sensibilities are misplaced is in effect forcing your morals on people. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
| Seriously Katsucats...fuck you. Nobody is redefining morality, but in a liberal society people are entitled to their own morality without being accused of redefining it for others. Drawing something is perfectly justified, you can draw whatever the fuck you want, nobody is stopping you and I will stop anybody who tries to stop you. Don't know where you get off calling me right wing... "Muslims are defining morality - It's 2013 I need to get with the programme" - your tone reeks of prejudice and you know it. |
apatch3May 20, 2013 5:05 PM
apatch3 said: So... in a liberal society, accusation is impossible? lolNobody is redefining morality, but in a liberal society people are entitled to their own morality without being accused of redefining it for others. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
| So... is someone gonna draw Muhammad? Nevermind; already happened. |
katsucats said: apatch3 said: So... in a liberal society, accusation is impossible? lolNobody is redefining morality, but in a liberal society people are entitled to their own morality without being accused of redefining it for others. Accusation is possible, but you're presumed innocent until proven guilty. You've just assumed so many things about my beliefs (based on your own stereotypes) it's not even funny. I'm actually an Anarchist Still I'm glad we had this discussion. you were one poster I had some respect for, no longer the case. You're just as bad as the Autocrat when it comes to your own prejudices. |
apatch3 said: I've only assumed so many things about your beliefs based on what you said... but uh.... feel free to keep framing me is an Islamophobe I guess?You've just assumed so many things about my beliefs (based on your own stereotypes) it's not even funny. katsucats said: Rebas said: The irony...apatch3 has said nothing xenophobic in the whole thread. Your insistence on associating him with xenophobia is just like muslims crying racism and islamophobia when anyone ever says anything against them. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
katsucats said: apatch3 said: I've only assumed so many things about your beliefs based on what you said... but uh.... feel free to keep framing me is an Islamophobe I guess?You've just assumed so many things about my beliefs (based on your own stereotypes) it's not even funny. Right...so..based on what I said, I'm a right winger? You've done a fine job of portraying yourself as an Islamophobe, I needn't bother. |
| Is it safe to come out? Yeah, so anyways....this muhammad guy SUX! |
apatch3 said: No. But based on what you said, you can't read.katsucats said: Right...so..based on what I said, I'm a right winger? You've done a fine job of portraying yourself as an Islamophobe, I needn't bother.apatch3 said: I've only assumed so many things about your beliefs based on what you said... but uh.... feel free to keep framing me is an Islamophobe I guess?You've just assumed so many things about my beliefs (based on your own stereotypes) it's not even funny. katsucats said: You're like the right-wingers who have shifted .... |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
| You've yet to prove how I'm policing people's morals? I'm only suggesting they should refrain from a certain course of action because it results in death and destruction, and discord between two communities. Your argument is that since these people choose to be offended, we should ignore the fact that they are and throw fuel onto the fire, you've decided to call anybody who objects a self pitying xenophobe. Great going, Americans are defining morality, it's 2013 I need to get with the programme |
More topics from this board
» What do you need cash for in your everyday life?MeanMrMusician - Apr 21 |
37 |
by Voila_
»»
23 minutes ago |
|
Poll: » do you hide or deny your dark side to others or society?deg - 8 hours ago |
26 |
by aikaflip
»»
35 minutes ago |
|
» What do yall collect? ( 1 2 3 4 5 ... Last Page )bevarnow - Jan 25 |
317 |
by bevarnow
»»
37 minutes ago |
|
» (Personality) Try to paste 3 different statements that matter to youIpreferEcchi - Apr 22 |
15 |
by IpreferEcchi
»»
38 minutes ago |
|
Poll: » Are you mentally ill?Ejrodiew - Apr 24 |
40 |
by aikaflip
»»
45 minutes ago |