PPR Rules/Etiquette

Post Reply New Topic

I guess I understand you all better now. If we had that First Amendment here I guess I would want a gun too. A ******* big one

I actually do not own a gun, nor have I ever fired one in my life.

You're asking me. You still haven't answered. You tell me.

The discussion was whether "kill them all" should be considered hate speech.

It would be politically correct if you were a roach or rodent exterminator.

But how many of us THINK it, but never say it out loud.

I suspect it is a ploy in the US, to allow hate speech to enable those in authority to ID the perps or potential perps. In the US, you can say it, but you will probably wind up on some watch list.

Is it possible that Tea Party gatherings are fertile places for undercover agents to compile photos, and lists? I'll bet if you were dumb enough to openly carry a firearm to one of those...

Enough said.

Paranoid much? Such an intelligence undertaking would be very logistically formiddable. Unless there are plans to establish martial law and quickly eliminate dissidents, I don't see what the benefit could be.

I see it as more of whether ruveyn has a right to his opinion or not. He doesn't strike me as the kind of guy who would actually go to war against each and every Muslim UNLESS things were bad enough internally that we DID all of a sudden start rounding them up. To be honest (in contrast to my previous posts), I don't see our current situation as appropriate to a "kill them all" attitude. I really do not harbor any hatred towards anyone, Muslim nor non-Muslim. In truth, the Koran, in spite of what it actually SAYS, remains a holy text for them just as the Bible is for us and I doubt anyone would seriously undertake rewriting the Koran any more than Christians would seriously undertake rewriting the Bible (although there are HUGE differences between the two.

However, BigK insinuated that I don't know whether 9/11 was a criminal act or not. That's an odd insinuation because I've ALREADY described it as such. It is a FACT that the Koran encourages criminal behavior, and I consider it remarkable that MOST Muslims do not engage in criminal activity as described by the Koran. It is also a FACT that, according to the Koran, that peaceful Muslims are to be seen by others as not TRUE Muslims (don't slap me with "no true Scotsman," this is about the connection of religious observance with crime) and therefore deserving of death. It is TRUE that there are those who wish to eradicate us in a similar "kill them all" attitude and, provided the means to do so, they would carry this out. 9/11 is a realization of such criminal intentions. Ruveyn is correct in the sense that criminals are to be treated as criminals. Perhaps his attitude is extreme enough to offend our pro-peace sensibilities, but he nevertheless has a right to express such views. Suggesting that criminals receive treatment befitting criminals is not wrong or inhumane.

BigK can't answer a simple question, however. Perhaps he thinks I'm trying to trap him. Here's what I think: I think BigK is a terrorist sympathizer. This is not an attack on a person, nor do I have any reason to harbor any hatred towards BigK because I don't even know the guy. But refusal to answer forces me to draw my own conclusions. And my conclusion is that BigK himself harbors deep hatred for those who think criminals who act in the name of Allah deserve to be punished. However, he can't express those views because that would be "hate-speech." If BigK says he is NOT a terrorist sympathizer, then that means either he is a liar OR he feels he can't call the 9/11 perpetrators criminals because THAT would ALSO be "hate-speech." At some point a line has to be drawn. Which is it? Do we censor pro-criminal hate speech against people like me, even though it's not REALLY hateful? Or do we censor anti-criminal hate speech against people like BigK who seem to suggest that the terrorists were right?

My opinion: Don't censor at all. Encourage open, honest dialogue. If you think what someone has to say is hateful, you may simply say so and go about making your point. But do NOT take away that person's right to say so. Seriously, I've had no problems expressing views which are offensive to those who do not believe as I do. But having my views attacked has been a highly revealing exercise. I've learned a lot. I haven't really changed my views per se, only the way in which I've arrived at my conclusions and how I go about defending them. If someone has something to say I disagree with, I'll only return the favor. Censoring does not contribute in any positive way to open exchanges of ideas. If you can censor ruveyn's posts, then someone else can censor yours. How is that fair and balanced?

Of course, I'm picking on BigK to make a point, but I wouldn't dare launch some big grudge-fest against BigK and continually harass him because he's pro-terrorist and I'm not. BigK, by not answering, seems perfectly willing to drop the subject and, frankly, so am I. If we censor anything, I think it would be those things in the form of over-the-top personal attacks or outright bullying. As to expressing unpopular or offensive views, I think the same applies. Saying something like "we need continued presence in Iraq to achieve stability in the Middle East" is perfectly acceptable, even though many of us might disagree. Saying "we need continued presence in Iraq until we wipe out all those sand n*****s" is something else entirely.

Do not call BigK a terrorist sympathizer or anything similar. You don't have proof of this claim. Also, while I agree with most of the posters here that opinions should not be censored if they offend peoples sensibilities, I need to point out that much of what you've said about the Koran and the Islamic faith espousing violence is incorrect. I've found out recently that just about all of the quotes from Koran that Osama bin Laden uses to justify his so-called jihad comes from a part that tells how the first Muslims were oppressed and persecuted by pagan Arabs and that they were fighting against oppression. It does not advocate violence against all non-Muslims, however I suppose that the quotes can be taken out of context just like quotes out of the Bible can be taken out of context. In fact, at least according to the Muslims I've met recently, Muslims claim to believe in the same God as Jews and Christians and even consider Jesus to be an important profit next to Mohammed. They are supposed to consider Judaism and Christianity to be on the correct path as well as Islam. It's actually people like Osama bin Laden who don't read their own religious texts according some Muslims I've met.

But why so shy to finish what you started? Since you've already made up your mind he's a terrorist sympathizer and all "bad" Muslims should be treated accordingly, the least you could do is take responsibility for what you preach.

Strictly based on his posts, I also think BigK has a tail and horns and eats human flesh. MUHAHA...

Jono: No proof, only "evidence." By standing mute, BigK forces our hands in drawing conclusions. That's not my fault. I'm simply calling him on it. If I'm wrong, fine, I'm wrong. In the US Constitution, your 5th Amendment rights are that you are free from self-incrimination. Perhaps BigK feels that any answer he can give is incriminating in one form or another. Nobody here is going to launch a witch-hunt on BigK for expressing his thoughts on the matter. If I'm wrong, I can perfectly well accept that. If I'm right, then so what? The world keeps turning and people will keep posting to forums, regardless of what side they're on. There's nothing to fear, UNLESS you find censorship to be acceptable. And if so, then you DO have to be on guard about your speech, your actions, and maybe even your thoughts. I bet I mean absolutely nothing to BigK. What possible harm is there in answering the question?

Sallamandrina: I'm not "shy," as you put it, to express my feelings on these matters. I haven't made up my mind in any fixed way. I've only drawn the conclusions that I can based on what has been said (or not said). I also bear no ill feelings towards BigK. I think the best way to take responsibility is to leave it alone. Being responsible also means a sort of self-censorship and discernment of whether something that has been said IS a personal attack or NOT. Two things here: Don't take it personally, and be civil. If the discussion between me and BigK is at a standstill, it is more responsible that I withdraw from the discussion rather than take it in a destructive direction.

this does sound like a witch hunt, actually. but an unncessary one, because he is allowed to have his own opinions and be free from sanctions under your system.

i have a question though... what exactly is a terrorist sympathizer? i am assuming, for the sake of argument, that you are speaking specifically of muslim terrorists. how exactly has he shown through his argument that he thinks terrorism in any form is a good thing? because he has said the opposite on many occasions.

understanding that, prior to 9/11, the united states engaged in extensive political, economic, and military actions that angered a subsect of muslim extremists =/= sympathy for terrorists.

To answer your first question, I am speaking specifically of muslim terrorists since that is, for the moment, the most convenient target. But, I could also be talking, in a more general way, about any other religious organization (even including Christians themselves) who commit crime in the name of religion. This isn't about playing favorites. Now, a terrorist sympathizer could be anyone who supports in thought or deed the actions of criminals. Race and religion have little to do with it, although in THIS case it does mean that religious tenets involved encourage criminal behavior.

Your second question: I asked simply whether the acts committed on 9/11 were criminal actions. No answer. By leaving it open, we are left to draw our own conclusions. What am I SUPPOSED to think? Am I to assume that he ISN'T a terrorist sympathizer? How am I supposed to know? If he has said the opposite on many other occasions, why can't he say so this time?

How about this, hyperlexian: Do YOU feel that 9/11 attacks were criminal?

of course the attacks were criminal. i am a peaceful person who fundamentally disagrees with MOST war or violence of any sort.

interestingly, calling the acts 'criminal' reduces the legal possibilities when selecting a recourse. because the 'criminals' had killed themselves in the acts of 9/11, there is no further action necessary, unless the investigators could find proof that any other individuals instigated the attacks from behind the scenes... and any proof of that existence has been largely sketchy and uncomfirmed at best. and... trying to annihilate entire nations, cultures or religions (or the people therein) is not a legally appropriate recourse (in ANY modern western government) for the criminal actions of the few.

therefore, calling it 'criminal' in fact reduces your options for retaliation.

(note, the fact i would agree the actions are criminal does not mean that i am unaware that we, as economically rich and militarily dominant countries in the western world, were at least partly responsible for the actions of 9/11.)

It's funny that you reply to the first two sentences of my post but not the rest which explains why you are wrong about Islam necessarily being a religion which advocates violence. It is related though because if you are wrong about that then BigK is not being a "terrorist sympathiser" for saying what he does. I in no way think censorship is acceptable, what I was saying was be very careful about statements like "Islam and the Koran promote violence" or calling people "terrorist sympathizers" before you know all the facts.

@AngelRho

Well, I didn't answer your question because it seemed to me to be a pretty stupid question.

You are ignoring any relevant points that anyone puts in front of you and just regurgitating the same nonsense.

Now apparently I am a terrorist sympathiser because I don't think that you are worth arguing with.

Why should I? I have never said that they were NOT criminal.

Now I am not a lawyer. I am not even American so your laws are unfamiliar to me. So, I will make some wild assumptions.

Commandeering an aircraft by persons other than the military, police or other agent of the state. I think that in most countries that would be considered hijacking and almost certainly illegal.

Deliberately flying the hijacked aircraft into a building likely to be occupied by thousands of people. Hmm. Even if the building was empty causing the deaths of the passengers sounds very much like murder to me. Even in the US.

As Al Qaeda is not a country it seems unlikely that they would have a UN resolution authorising an attack on the USA.
So it seems fairly safe to assume that the attack was illegal and yes criminal.

But then the war on Iraq didn't have the necessary resolutions either. Several members of the UK government resigned due to believing that that war was illegal.

All this is pretty irrelevant anyway as what we were discussing was whether it was hate speech to say "Kill them all".
You appear to be branding every Muslim a criminal because of the actions of a handful of lunatics.
Poster after poster points out that most Muslims do not support the indiscriminate murder of civilians regardless of what a few out of context lines of the Koran say.

If every Muslim is a criminal because of the acts of a small number of Islamic terrorists then we all must be criminals due to the illegal acts carried out by our governments on our behalf. Have you been keeping up with the atrocities committed by our troops around the world?

If you don't have the wit to understand that there are many strands of Islam and that different strands/scholars will interpret the text in different ways then it really is not worth responding to you.

Just in case this has all gone over your head (again).
If people do not respond to you it could well be that they expect you to ignore any relevant points and continue spewing the same load of dingo's kidneys that you have all along.

FINALLY, a straight answer. Why is that so difficult? I dunno...

But there you go... You are NOT a terrorist sympathizer, nor did I honestly think you were one. I was just pointing out the conclusions you could lead me (or anyone else) to draw. You also believe that the acts WERE indeed criminal.

So if it IS criminal (and we've established that it is), what really is the problem with treating those who "aid and abet" as criminals, also? In other words, why is it "hate-speech" to demand justice? If we're talking about criminals here, then there's no "hate-speech" to censor. Ruveyn is well within his rights to say what he has to say. If you disagree, fine. If you disagree with me, fine. But going on the offensive on a person saying THIS idea should be censored or THAT idea should be censored just because you don't like it isn't fair. That turns the forum into the kind of place where you can say what you want as long as we all agree on the same thing. So who is to say what we should all say or think? I'd rather have to deal with bullies and mockers and at least have a forum to state my opinion on rather than guard every single thing I might have to say for fear it might "offend" someone.

we are not talking about criminals. the criminals killed themselves on 9/11.

most muslims are not criminals. therefore targeting the entire group is hate speech by definition.