Oriphiel

And yet not a single person in this thread ever said that we should give in to their demands and accept censorship. The reason I began this argument with you in the first place is because you kept associating all of Islam with extremist groups, claiming that the only way to deal with them was to retaliate. You seem to really dislike Muslims, and yet the only way that the violence is going to end is if we work with the people of the Middle East to fix the problems that have created these terrorist cells. And yes, that also means that we'll eventually have to work with terrorist groups, if we're ever going to get them to disarm their soldiers and integrate into viable communities. While working with former terrorists seems unthinkable to you, I've already pointed out that this tactic successfully worked with The Black Panthers, and was also a serious blow to the IRA (who have mostly been disarmed, except for a few ultra-extremist cells. Compared to the violence that took place during "The Troubles", the IRA has lost a massive amount of influence over the people of Ireland). This is called "compromise in the face of violence", working with people who have wronged you or even killed friends of yours in the past, and though you may dislike it, it's the only proven way to end the violence.

Or we could just follow your advice and focus on arresting/attacking terrorists as a reactionary solution. Because the thousands of years of violence in the Middle East have proven that reactionary violence is such a successful tactic.

I've debated with you and systematically destroyed each of your points, while providing historical examples to prove my own. As far as i'm concerned, this argument is over. But by all means, feel free to keep fighting straw-men.

John Wilkes Booth

i think you really just don't understand my posts to be honest. i don't think i have associated all of islam with extremist groups and i don't think i ever once advocated retaliating with violence. the quotes that you drag up of me supposedly doing so are me saying that we shouldn't back down and by this i mean we shouldn't self-censor to appease them. i was specifically referring to chula & co's argument that the magazine should have known better than to attack islam in this way. basically that would be self censorship for the sake of appeasing terrorists, in my opinion, which is specifically what i have been arguing against the entire time. i really did try my best to make this clear to you but it seems there is honestly some sort of communication barrier between us.

my comments about arresting the terrorists was me specifying that this is the only 'violence' i'd endorse as a response to the attacks. not that this is going to end terrorism or anything like that. but either way criminals need to be arrested for their crimes. right?

every point you have 'destroyed' is a point i never made. that is what is usually referred to as 'fighting straw-men' which is why it's ironic you ended your post that way lol

Oriphiel

John, you're just embarrassing yourself at this point. Look at the part of your post that I bolded. Now read my post again, especially the beginning and the end:

Trollheart and Chula were advocating being cautious; they never once said that people should be censored, or that we should just take the act of terrorist lying down. You're fighting an enemy that doesn't exist. Every single insane sentiment that you've spouted out has been thoroughly refuted. But you're right about one thing, though; I am attacking a straw-man. Namely, you. Because that's what you are. You have absolutely no intellectual substance in such matters, a fact that has become more apparent with each of your posts. Even by your own admission, you're fighting over a topic (censorship) that nobody is disputing. Why are you still here?

Oriphiel

Well, it looks like another bout of arguing has come to an end. And just like the last time...



If you want to go for yet another round, just say something idiotic or insulting to someone, and I'll show up to call you out. Fear not, gentle denizens of Music Banter, for you are once again safe to have beards!

John Wilkes Booth

define 'being cautious' for me. because my interpretation of being cautious is self-censorship. i.e. not posting such offensive material because you know the reaction it is bound to provoke. i call that self-censorship because that is precisely what it is. you asserting that it's not censorship is accomplishing absolutely nothing in this debate tbh. you can try providing some kind of reasoning as to why that isn't self-censorship or you can stop wasting my time.

John Wilkes Booth

lol. i went to bed because i have to get prepared for another weekend of work. you really are quite childish.

John Wilkes Booth

to expand on this, cause i don't want you to misinterpret my point again, it isn't mandatory censorship as in when the authorities silence you through force. but either way it is self-censorship because the end result is you not expressing a particular view out of fear of retribution. the end result is the same, the only real difference is that instead of the state enforcing the censorship it is violent thugs doing the enforcing in the form of terrorist attacks. this is no better than state censorship, in my eyes, and that is what i have been arguing against this entire time.

chula was saying that you 'shouldn't poke the bear' which does basically mean the magazine should have thought twice about posting that offensive material. at least that's how i interpreted it. his only caveat was that if they were going to post the offensive material they should have soldiered up first and got armed and bunkered down. while it might have been smart for them to have done so, i don't think they were obligated to do so and honestly i think the fact that they left themselves open to an attack was an effective demonstration of free speech in the same way the civil rights protestors left themselves open to violence - in fact they sort of explicitly provoked violence - for the sake of demonstrating their point.

i will say though i am quite amused at how riled up i'm getting you. it seems like you really can't handle me disagreeing with you, for whatever reason. this must mean that either you really do respect my opinion, in which case i'm flattered, or it just means that your ego can't handle being told you're wrong, in which case i'm just amused like i said before. i guess you were right about the fact that part of me does enjoy getting people riled up. but either way i'm not being disingenuous for the sake of getting people riled up. i'm only giving you my honest opinion without sugarcoating it. i guess i just find it entertaining when people get angry at me for that.

p.s. i'll be going to work in a few hours and i do 12 hour shifts. so if you come back and you don't get a response from me right away, don't get too excited this time. i'll be back around 8 pm or so EST.

Oriphiel

Going for round three, huh? Well, you're off to kind of a strange start, with three consecutive posts. Anyway, why are you back? Literally every single one of your points has been refuted, and you keep bringing up the issue of "censorship", which nobody is contesting. It's almost like you want us to support censorship, so you can have an excuse to keep rambling on.

Anyway, Chula and Trollheart never said that people should censor themselves. All they said was that the people who criticized the terrorists should have expected something violent to happen, and have been prepared for it. That's not "censoring" or "giving up". People still want to send clear messages to the terrorists, but they don't have to die needlessly to do it.

But that's besides the point. I don't support censorship. And if you'll remember, when Chula and Trollheart were still here, I was the one opposing their point of view, and I called them out for demeaning the heroic actios of those journalists. So why are you shouting all of this junk at me? You have literally no reason to be here.

John Wilkes Booth

Lol. Still intent on avoiding my point to save face huh? I'll give you a full break down of why you're wrong when I get off work.

Chula Vista

Tell it to the relatives that they left behind who had to bury them because of their supposed "heroics".

I'll lay my life on the line for a number of things. Being able to wantonly publish vile and vulgar cartoons ain't one of them.

__________________

“The fact that we live at the bottom of a deep gravity well,
on the surface of a gas covered planet going around a nuclear fireball 90 million miles away
and think this to be normal is obviously some indication of how skewed our perspective tends to be.”