The Killing Joke

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
121

[quote]magick wrote:

[quote]on edge wrote:
What if Tim and TC and Laurie get whacked because you posted those on TN?

How about Mod Starr, do we give a fuck if Mod Starr gets fire bombed?[/quote]

Honest question- If you got an email stating that there will be an attempt on your fellow employee/significant other’s life if you do X, would you do X?

I say this for everyone here as well. I’m curious what the answers would be.[/quote]

From an intellectual standpoint, I have always believed that allowing hecklers a veto is an undesirable option. I cannot answer how I would react in practice if they were threatening my SO. I would hope I would stick by my principles, but who knows?

122

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
Your religion is JUST AS GUILTY of this as islam. [/quote]

Again with this bullshit. You dont’ get to call other out on “strawmen” when you fallacy all over the place too.

No. Not even close.

It’s power, wealth, resources. Religion is/was just a tool. You’re too bias to ever get it.

I see how ridiculous your perspective is, because you project the actions of 0.00000000000000001% of the religious people over the last 2000 years onto 100% of the religious people who have lived the last 2000 years. [/quote]

I don’t feel like arguing today - I’ve got the fucking flu. My point is that RELIGION when combined with an IGNORANT population and a MALICIOUS leadership produces the same result regardless of the religion: people killing in the name of god.

You can cry bullshit all you want, but anyone who’s taken a high school history course knows that I’m correct.

For the record, my honest opinion is that people should be able to BELIEVE what they want. But if there are people that believe “the west” and everything it stands for is wrong and and wants to subject me and mine to THEIR beliefs, then I have a pretty big fucking problem with that.

123

A 5th century mentality with 21st century weapons.

What a combo.

124

We need the soccer hooligans to wake the hell up and take back their continent!!

125

What I find funny is that the white house questions the “judgement” to publish the cartoon, when just last week they were telling Sony, “I wish they would have talked to me” before they submitted to terrorist demands…

So what is it? Should we just run EVERY media decision through Obama? He can decide what will be offensive and “bad judgement” and what is just “silly N. Korean nonsense”? OH WAIT… The SONY incident involved N. Korea (not muslim), the PARIS incident involved muslims, so we have the EXTRA CAREFUL not to offend them…

126

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
What I find funny is that the white house questions the “judgement” to publish the cartoon, when just last week they were telling Sony, “I wish they would have talked to me” before they submitted to terrorist demands…

So what is it? Should we just run EVERY media decision through Obama? He can decide what will be offensive and “bad judgement” and what is just “silly N. Korean nonsense”? OH WAIT… The SONY incident involved N. Korea (not muslim), the PARIS incident involved muslims, so we have the EXTRA CAREFUL not to offend them…[/quote]

Did the white house really question the judgement to publish the cartoon ???

127

[quote]Biskui wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
What I find funny is that the white house questions the “judgement” to publish the cartoon, when just last week they were telling Sony, “I wish they would have talked to me” before they submitted to terrorist demands…

So what is it? Should we just run EVERY media decision through Obama? He can decide what will be offensive and “bad judgement” and what is just “silly N. Korean nonsense”? OH WAIT… The SONY incident involved N. Korea (not muslim), the PARIS incident involved muslims, so we have the EXTRA CAREFUL not to offend them…[/quote]

Did the white house really question the judgement to publish the cartoon ???

[/quote]

128

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
What I find funny is that the white house questions the “judgement” to publish the cartoon, when just last week they were telling Sony, “I wish they would have talked to me” before they submitted to terrorist demands…[/quote]

Not saying you don’t know this, but Carney gave the “judgment” quote years ago.

We’re seeing it in the news now because the American people/newsmedia, who are all bickering old ladies at heart, have to make this a matter of domestic American pettypolitics. Otherwise it just isn’t worth thinking about.

Incidentally, remember when then-President Barack Obama said that “Islam is Peace” in September 2001?

129

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[quote]Biskui wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
What I find funny is that the white house questions the “judgement” to publish the cartoon, when just last week they were telling Sony, “I wish they would have talked to me” before they submitted to terrorist demands…

So what is it? Should we just run EVERY media decision through Obama? He can decide what will be offensive and “bad judgement” and what is just “silly N. Korean nonsense”? OH WAIT… The SONY incident involved N. Korea (not muslim), the PARIS incident involved muslims, so we have the EXTRA CAREFUL not to offend them…[/quote]

Did the white house really question the judgement to publish the cartoon ???

[/quote]

[/quote]

That’s sick.

Situation in France is very tense. People are getting tired of the export of middle east conflicts in our country, extremes are stronger than ever, elections are coming this year and the economy is very bad…

Hundreds, if not thousands, of french teens are leaving the country to go to Syria / Iraq fight for Daesh, and thousands show complacancy with the attacks.

I have been living in suburbs for years, and the last 5 / 10 years the number of radical muslims has been rising very drastically and politics seems to don’t know how to fight that. It’s crazy, even at the gym I can hear opinions that seems to come from middle-age. Those young guys love the comfort of the western life but they hate all that western represents, they can’t stand freedom, especially freedom of wives, they can’t stand science or philosophy that does not come from the Koran, and more dangerous, they totally identify to their religion. They are a minority but they do exist.

The question is how to deal with that in a modern democratic country ? How do you answer to that kind of attack ?

130

Oh, and the Christians here are a few thousand leagues beyond delusional if they think they wouldn’t agree that depictions of Jesus, for example, bending over with his nutsack and asshole exposed are “deeply offensive.” They would probably even question the judgment of such images’ publication, while also affirming the right to publish. Exactly as the W.H. did.

Which is to detract from neither the ballsy greatness of the people at Hebdo nor the tragedy of what befell them.

The only other comment I have on all this is that the benefits of gun ownership are obvious today, and if I ran a satirical magazine with enemies, you can bet I’d have a heavy fuckin piece in my desk drawer.

131

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]TooHuman wrote:

However I would argue that all religion is violent because even the most secular Christians threaten their children with eternal damnation and justify abusing their children with scripture.[/quote]

lmao… DD is right. Atheism is a religion, complete with a dogma and everything.

I used to think the same stupid shit when I was a card carrying Militant Atheist. [/quote]

What people fail to consider is that all morality is spiritual. Secularity by definition cannot consider right or wrong, good or evil. Good and evil are not part of the natural physical world. ANY reference to them is reference to the supernatural. All laws, based on a moral construct, are dependent on spirituality. Any person who truly desires a secular society must want laws against everything from murder to rape to robbery thrown out.

While the US is not founded on a particular religion, it is founded on a particular spiritual morality (men created equally, ect.). And as such, while it is not right to enshrine a religion in government, it is entirely possible and necessary to condemn specific religions opposed to the founding religious principles of the nation. If a religion stands in opposition to our primary founding morality contained in documents like the constitution, it is not only the right of the public and public officials, but their duty to condemn it. The Constitution cannot and should not protect groups that fight against democracy, or equality under the law, or the god given rights of man.

I always find it humorous when atheists challenge religion in the public sphere by holding up documents that enshrine what are asserted as god given rights.

132

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]TooHuman wrote:

However I would argue that all religion is violent because even the most secular Christians threaten their children with eternal damnation and justify abusing their children with scripture.[/quote]

lmao… DD is right. Atheism is a religion, complete with a dogma and everything.

I used to think the same stupid shit when I was a card carrying Militant Atheist. [/quote]

What people fail to consider is that all morality is spiritual. Secularity by definition cannot consider right or wrong, good or evil. Good and evil are not part of the natural physical world. ANY reference to them is reference to the supernatural. All laws, based on a moral construct, are dependent on spirituality. Any person who truly desires a secular society must want laws against everything from murder to rape to robbery thrown out.

While the US is not founded on a particular religion, it is founded on a particular spiritual morality (men created equally, ect.). And as such, while it is not right to enshrine a religion in government, it is entirely possible and necessary to condemn specific religions opposed to the founding religious principles of the nation. If a religion stands in opposition to our primary founding morality contained in documents like the constitution, it is not only the right of the public and public officials, but their duty to condemn it. The Constitution cannot and should not protect groups that fight against democracy, or equality under the law, or the god given rights of man.

I always find it humorous when atheists challenge religion in the public sphere by holding up documents that enshrine what are asserted as god given rights.
[/quote]

If you order more than 200 dollars worth of Brain Candy you get 15% off! Hint hint

133

[quote]Biskui wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
What I find funny is that the white house questions the “judgement” to publish the cartoon, when just last week they were telling Sony, “I wish they would have talked to me” before they submitted to terrorist demands…

So what is it? Should we just run EVERY media decision through Obama? He can decide what will be offensive and “bad judgement” and what is just “silly N. Korean nonsense”? OH WAIT… The SONY incident involved N. Korea (not muslim), the PARIS incident involved muslims, so we have the EXTRA CAREFUL not to offend them…[/quote]

Did the white house really question the judgement to publish the cartoon ???

[/quote]
Yes. Because they are cowards. People bash Christianity all the time. We find it offensive, but we don’t kill anybody. We’ll write a strongly worded letter if we’re mad about it.

134

[quote]Biskui wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[quote]Biskui wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
What I find funny is that the white house questions the “judgement” to publish the cartoon, when just last week they were telling Sony, “I wish they would have talked to me” before they submitted to terrorist demands…

So what is it? Should we just run EVERY media decision through Obama? He can decide what will be offensive and “bad judgement” and what is just “silly N. Korean nonsense”? OH WAIT… The SONY incident involved N. Korea (not muslim), the PARIS incident involved muslims, so we have the EXTRA CAREFUL not to offend them…[/quote]

Did the white house really question the judgement to publish the cartoon ???

[/quote]

[/quote]

That’s sick.

Situation in France is very tense. People are getting tired of the export of middle east conflicts in our country, extremes are stronger than ever, elections are coming this year and the economy is very bad…

Hundreds, if not thousands, of french teens are leaving the country to go to Syria / Iraq fight for Daesh, and thousands show complacancy with the attacks.

I have been living in suburbs for years, and the last 5 / 10 years the number of radical muslims has been rising very drastically and politics seems to don’t know how to fight that. It’s crazy, even at the gym I can hear opinions that seems to come from middle-age. Those young guys love the comfort of the western life but they hate all that western represents, they can’t stand freedom, especially freedom of wives, they can’t stand science or philosophy that does not come from the Koran, and more dangerous, they totally identify to their religion. They are a minority but they do exist.

The question is how to deal with that in a modern democratic country ? How do you answer to that kind of attack ?

[/quote]

Confidently? Almost any action you take, aside from ignoring the event, will result in the curtailment of some liberties to the government.
I know what worked for Northern Ireland, which was a peace deal that shared power between the competing factions. Such a tactic is unusable here, for obvious reasons.

Perhaps making sure that no money or people leave the middle east? But the practicality of that is tough to guess.

135

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
What I find funny is that the white house questions the “judgement” to publish the cartoon, when just last week they were telling Sony, “I wish they would have talked to me” before they submitted to terrorist demands…[/quote]

As Smh_23 pointed out, the article you posted came 2 years ago. There is absolutely no correlation between that comment, from a freaking post secretary no less, and the events that occurred recently.

I have no idea what they printed at the time, but if it comes anything close to what Smh_23 wrote regarding Jesus, then I would think that’s pretty darned offensive.

136

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
I don’t feel like arguing today - I’ve got the fucking flu. My point is that RELIGION when combined with an IGNORANT population and a MALICIOUS leadership produces the same result regardless of the religion: people killing in the name of god.[/quote]

Would you prefer if people chose to not use religion as the stand-in and just spoke the truth instead? The truth being that they’re killing for nationalism, power, and money?

137

The Sony hack being blamed in North Korea is becoming more and more questionable if you talk to tech people who are politically neutral. Obama may have fucked up on that one.

Have to hand it to Bill Maher calling it like it is, I am shocked the people who run Kimmel let this air yesterday.

138

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
Your religion is JUST AS GUILTY of this as islam. [/quote]

Again with this bullshit. You dont’ get to call other out on “strawmen” when you fallacy all over the place too.

No. Not even close.

It’s power, wealth, resources. Religion is/was just a tool. You’re too bias to ever get it.

I see how ridiculous your perspective is, because you project the actions of 0.00000000000000001% of the religious people over the last 2000 years onto 100% of the religious people who have lived the last 2000 years. [/quote]

I don’t feel like arguing today - I’ve got the fucking flu. My point is that RELIGION when combined with an IGNORANT population and a MALICIOUS leadership produces the same result regardless of the religion: people killing in the name of god.

You can cry bullshit all you want, but anyone who’s taken a high school history course knows that I’m correct.

For the record, my honest opinion is that people should be able to BELIEVE what they want. But if there are people that believe “the west” and everything it stands for is wrong and and wants to subject me and mine to THEIR beliefs, then I have a pretty big fucking problem with that.[/quote]

Feel better AC. I had that funk a week ago. It sucked.

139

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
I’ve got the fucking flu. [/quote]

That sucks man. Sorry to hear. Hope you feel better soon.

Let me try and make my point this way:

My point is that GOVERNMENT when combined with an DISRESSED GERMAN population and a MALICIOUS leadership produces the same result regardless of the type of government: people killing in the name of government

My point is that IDEALS when combined with an * population and a MALICIOUS leadership produces the same result regardless of the type of ideal or population: people killing in the name of their malicious leader, who in the end game just wants power

I have a new found respect for my high school history education, and college, and post grad. Because not once was it confused that it was religion doing anything. It was evil men in search of power and wealth using religion to achieve their means.

Never once was it ever confused that it was all religious people acting in that way, nor was it ever construed that the entirety of the religious population was guilty for the crimes of some.

I’m not trying to insult you, put you down or otherwise take a jab at you, just being honest here: you’re lying to yourself.

I think gun control advocates and everything they stand for is wrong. And I think they should be subject to my beliefs. I do so through advocacy, contact with my representatives and donations to appropriate foundations.

Do gun control advocates need to “restrict” me and my beliefs?

140

[quote]on edge wrote:

If you order more than 200 dollars worth of Brain Candy you get 15% off! Hint hint[/quote]

Someone doesn’t hold the same opinion or world view as you, they must not be very intelligent, right?