|
On December 16 2010 13:11 ckw wrote:
I don't even see how this can be argued either way, you censor it and they threaten more about new bullsh**, you don't censor it and supposedly they kill people? I'm getting so fed up with these retards, what makes them think killing INNOCENT PEOPLE because of the act of that government or one man. Simply stupid, does America go and purposely kill a bunch of women and children just because they have the same religion as or live in the same area as these sleez bags?
These people who commit the suicide bombings are usually just weak minded beings that get brain washed by superiors. I hope these guys feel like retards when they wake up in hell. No God and no religion has ever said that it is okay to kill people for no reason.
this guy only watches Fox news
|
ok so pretty much what we can say is that many people here don't know a lot about the middle east in general.
what we are seeing in the middle east is the fault of the select mullas (Islamic clergy) who have spoken anti-american comments, and people are taking those comment like they would the words of the koran. reason why the mullas can do this is because they have the power. most of the people in the middle east cannot read or write, so they gain their knowledge of the koran and current issues through the mullas. there are a few mullas who only want power and want to take it by force, so the people listening to mullas will only know that and nothing else.
i will provide a history example. 700 years ago the catholic church had a lot of power, having both political and social power (like the mullas in the middle east) the general population were not that smart and couldn't read or write (like the population in the middle east today) so the priests would eb the bearers of knowledge. we all know how that went. the church killed anyone who stood in their way and only sought the power that they wanted. when the people started to learn more and become more independent, the church reacted and started killing those who had the most knowledge of science.
when we look back at that, it was knowledge that released the masses from the power fo the priests. we can easily now relate what happend 700 years ago to the current problems in the middle east.
what we need to do a society is to let the people in the middle east learn, and gain that knowledge.like the old motto "knowledge is power,"
|
On December 16 2010 11:01 Consolidate wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2010 10:46 FabledIntegral wrote:On December 16 2010 10:43 Consolidate wrote:On December 16 2010 10:36 FabledIntegral wrote:On December 16 2010 10:08 Consolidate wrote:On December 16 2010 09:56 FabledIntegral wrote:On December 16 2010 09:21 Consolidate wrote:On December 16 2010 08:48 Squeegy wrote:On December 16 2010 08:21 RaptorX wrote:
"A truly free society is one in which the people can express themselves however they want"
In the real World, that one that we live in, that doesnt exist because some times when you act "however you want" simply brings bad things not only to you but for other people.
You should be adult and intelligent enough to figure out that some times "what you want" is not in the best interest for you or the people around you at that particular moment.
Here comes my radical thought again, I dont mind of what you do as long as I am out of it, but when what you do, simply agitates the bees then I will simply laugh when they start biting you.
I love freedom of speech and I dont want it diminished, but there is something called responsibility and that guy will be responsible for the lives taken by the extremists because he used his freedom to provoke them. So it is his fault and I feel nothing for him.
There has to be a different way to persuade the fanatics that killing in the name of their god is not such a good thing instead of insulting them, dont you think? Indeed freedom of speech is not nor should it be absolute. Consider the statement, McDonalds burgers made of human meat, in a large newspaper. Why should I be allowed to say that without consequences? Of course the Muhammed drawings are a different issue, but certain things should not be said in certain situations. The consequences should not come from the government. In your case, the consequence would be the natural damage to the newspaper's credibility once its reported claim is quickly disproved. In the United States, Glenn Beck is allowed to lie on television for the sole purpose of driving the public to panic (also ratings). We do not jail holocaust deniers. We do not jail fear-mongers. We do not jail liars. Freedom of speech is absolute. I am allowed to shout fire in a crowded theatre because there may in fact, be a fire. And if there isn't, then my credibility will suffer, but I should not be punished otherwise so as not to discourage other people from speaking what they think is the truth. What the hell are you on. Freedom of speech is not absolute and you definitely aren't allowed to shout fire in a crowded theater unless there is a fire, whether or not you believe there to be one is irrelevant. Although you might get out with an insanity argument, I don't know how the courts work, but it'd be a huge stretch. You are right in saying that you don't know how the courts work. Perhaps you should better educate yourself: Holmes, writing for a unanimous majority, ruled that it was illegal to distribute flyers opposing the draft during World War I. Holmes argued this abridgment of free speech was permissible because it presented a "clear and present danger" to the government's recruitment efforts for the war. Holmes wrote: The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. [...] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. Holmes wrote of falsely shouting fire, because, of course, if there were a fire in a crowded theater, one may rightly indeed shout "Fire!"; one may, depending on the law in operation, even be obliged to. Falsely shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater, i.e. shouting "Fire!" when one believes there to be no fire in order to cause panic, was interpreted not to be protected by the First Amendment. The First Amendment holding in Schenck was later overturned by Brandenburg v. Ohio, which limited the scope of banned speech to that which would be directed to and likely to incite imminent lawless action (e.g. a riot). The test in Brandenburg is the current High Court jurisprudence on the ability of government to proscribe speech after that fact. Allow me to reiterate. In the United States there is absolute freedom of speech. I do not expect you to be familiar with American law, but I do ask you to refrain from arguing from ignorance. Maybe I'm not understanding your definition of absolute. Because still with the Brandenburg test there is some limited speech. At the same time, libel/slander are clear limits on free speech, as you can be sued for it. So what do you mean by "absolute." At the federal level there are no criminal defamation laws. Libel/slader are civil matters, not criminal. I see, I was aware that they were civil matters, but I wasn't aware you were making a distinction between civil vs criminal in your claim that freedom of speech is absolute. Also, I'm curious why yelling fire in a theater does not qualify as reckless endangerment, especially if it results in the stampede and death of someone. The distinction should be obvious. Civil matters are between individuals. Criminal matters are between the individual and the government. Freedom of speech is protected by the government. Don't get carried away with the definition of 'absolute'. There is no celestial law to justify freedom of speech. What I'm merely saying is that level of freedom of speech in the US protected by national law is greater than people think. 'Shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre' could be considered to be reckless endangerment. However, remember that this example is an analogy - it's not actually a free speech issue.
Well, it isn't obvious to us. Want to elaborate? Also, threats should fall under the category of criminal matters.
|
On December 16 2010 06:54 No_Roo wrote:Personal experience with censorship: + Show Spoiler +
When I was in high school I was suspended for 3 days for saying out loud "Your father is a no good nigger lover"
I was in English class, I had been called on to read out loud a section of to kill a mocking bird. (This is a line in the book said by a particularly racist character).
The class had previously decided (via some pseudo-democratic discussion process) despite my and a few other student's objections to omit use of that word because it was offensive.
When I was sent to the administration and asked why I did it, I attempted to defend myself basically as follows:
I read it any way with the deliberate intention of offending people. Not out of spite though, I wanted them to feel offended because that's what the author wanted you to feel when you read it, this book is about prejudice, if the instructor is so concerned about offending someone, then maybe she should consider teaching a different book, rather than censoring this one and really denying the full impact of the anti-prejudice message that the author is trying to convey. (or maybe don't call on some one who vehemently objected to the initial censoring to read a section out loud that contained the word, I mean come on, that was kind of a dick move).
Although pretty proud of sticking by my principles, and feeling pretty cocky about my civil disobedience, the defense I mounted was completely ineffective.
The most frustrating part of the experience for me was not the punishment, but that after I realized of the some 30 kids in the class probably 5 opposed the censorship, 15 probably didn't give two shits, and 10 felt completely justified censoring someone else's art form. The reason that this was so frustrating was because of the realization that such a large number of people were either apathetic to censorship, or in favor of it, and how it might be inevitable for censorship to become increasingly pervasive.
It is the domain of the artist to decide what is critical to their expression, not the audience. If you dislike the expression, do not subscribe to it (literally or figuratively) to whoever/whatever is depicting it. The only thing worse than terrorists trying to impose their civics on other people is when people cave in under that pressure and encourage them to do it more. Frankly that the topic even warrants a discussion has me deeply offended, but not quite so much that I won't chime in. 
great story
|
On December 16 2010 06:54 No_Roo wrote:Personal experience with censorship: + Show Spoiler +
When I was in high school I was suspended for 3 days for saying out loud "Your father is a no good nigger lover"
I was in English class, I had been called on to read out loud a section of to kill a mocking bird. (This is a line in the book said by a particularly racist character).
The class had previously decided (via some pseudo-democratic discussion process) despite my and a few other student's objections to omit use of that word because it was offensive.
When I was sent to the administration and asked why I did it, I attempted to defend myself basically as follows:
I read it any way with the deliberate intention of offending people. Not out of spite though, I wanted them to feel offended because that's what the author wanted you to feel when you read it, this book is about prejudice, if the instructor is so concerned about offending someone, then maybe she should consider teaching a different book, rather than censoring this one and really denying the full impact of the anti-prejudice message that the author is trying to convey. (or maybe don't call on some one who vehemently objected to the initial censoring to read a section out loud that contained the word, I mean come on, that was kind of a dick move).
Although pretty proud of sticking by my principles, and feeling pretty cocky about my civil disobedience, the defense I mounted was completely ineffective.
The most frustrating part of the experience for me was not the punishment, but that after I realized of the some 30 kids in the class probably 5 opposed the censorship, 15 probably didn't give two shits, and 10 felt completely justified censoring someone else's art form. The reason that this was so frustrating was because of the realization that such a large number of people were either apathetic to censorship, or in favor of it, and how it might be inevitable for censorship to become increasingly pervasive.
It is the domain of the artist to decide what is critical to their expression, not the audience. If you dislike the expression, do not subscribe to it (literally or figuratively) to whoever/whatever is depicting it. The only thing worse than terrorists trying to impose their civics on other people is when people cave in under that pressure and encourage them to do it more. Frankly that the topic even warrants a discussion has me deeply offended, but not quite so much that I won't chime in.
Censorship of art in terms of expressing part of it, is NOT the artists decision
It is the expresser's decision.
And in your case, you, the expresser, had a legitimate authority (teacher) over what you could express in class.
If I choose to tell an edited version of a story, that is perfectly fine, as long as I don't pretend it is unedited.
You are right that editing the text alrtered the impact... has it occured to you that the teacher (and other students) Wanted to alter the impact. That is entirely within the teacher's right, as long as you know it is edited. The fact that You read it also altered the work, your voice and build and reputation at the school all became part of the impact of the work altering it beyond what the artist intended.
|
On December 17 2010 08:10 Krikkitone wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2010 06:54 No_Roo wrote:Personal experience with censorship: + Show Spoiler +
When I was in high school I was suspended for 3 days for saying out loud "Your father is a no good nigger lover"
I was in English class, I had been called on to read out loud a section of to kill a mocking bird. (This is a line in the book said by a particularly racist character).
The class had previously decided (via some pseudo-democratic discussion process) despite my and a few other student's objections to omit use of that word because it was offensive.
When I was sent to the administration and asked why I did it, I attempted to defend myself basically as follows:
I read it any way with the deliberate intention of offending people. Not out of spite though, I wanted them to feel offended because that's what the author wanted you to feel when you read it, this book is about prejudice, if the instructor is so concerned about offending someone, then maybe she should consider teaching a different book, rather than censoring this one and really denying the full impact of the anti-prejudice message that the author is trying to convey. (or maybe don't call on some one who vehemently objected to the initial censoring to read a section out loud that contained the word, I mean come on, that was kind of a dick move).
Although pretty proud of sticking by my principles, and feeling pretty cocky about my civil disobedience, the defense I mounted was completely ineffective.
The most frustrating part of the experience for me was not the punishment, but that after I realized of the some 30 kids in the class probably 5 opposed the censorship, 15 probably didn't give two shits, and 10 felt completely justified censoring someone else's art form. The reason that this was so frustrating was because of the realization that such a large number of people were either apathetic to censorship, or in favor of it, and how it might be inevitable for censorship to become increasingly pervasive.
It is the domain of the artist to decide what is critical to their expression, not the audience. If you dislike the expression, do not subscribe to it (literally or figuratively) to whoever/whatever is depicting it. The only thing worse than terrorists trying to impose their civics on other people is when people cave in under that pressure and encourage them to do it more. Frankly that the topic even warrants a discussion has me deeply offended, but not quite so much that I won't chime in. Censorship of art in terms of expressing part of it, is NOT the artists decision It is the expresser's decision. And in your case, you, the expresser, had a legitimate authority (teacher) over what you could express in class. If I choose to tell an edited version of a story, that is perfectly fine, as long as I don't pretend it is unedited. You are right that editing the text alrtered the impact... has it occured to you that the teacher (and other students) Wanted to alter the impact. That is entirely within the teacher's right, as long as you know it is edited. The fact that You read it also altered the work, your voice and build and reputation at the school all became part of the impact of the work altering it beyond what the artist intended.
No. Only the creator of the artwork can express their artwork. An intermediary can then interpret the artwork and then express their interpretation of it. An interpreter might omit a critical bit of information that to the artist was very meaningful, but to the interpreter was dismissed as an insignificant detail. This happens very frequently in movies,music,art,books etc.
As such, only the artist can decide what is critical to their expression.
An artist accepts that people's interpretations of their work have the potential to be flawed, or even downright backwards. This problem is unavoidable because communication isn't perfect. However deliberately modifying the message is at best incredibly disrespectful to the artist.
|
On December 17 2010 08:48 No_Roo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2010 08:10 Krikkitone wrote:On December 16 2010 06:54 No_Roo wrote:Personal experience with censorship: + Show Spoiler +
When I was in high school I was suspended for 3 days for saying out loud "Your father is a no good nigger lover"
I was in English class, I had been called on to read out loud a section of to kill a mocking bird. (This is a line in the book said by a particularly racist character).
The class had previously decided (via some pseudo-democratic discussion process) despite my and a few other student's objections to omit use of that word because it was offensive.
When I was sent to the administration and asked why I did it, I attempted to defend myself basically as follows:
I read it any way with the deliberate intention of offending people. Not out of spite though, I wanted them to feel offended because that's what the author wanted you to feel when you read it, this book is about prejudice, if the instructor is so concerned about offending someone, then maybe she should consider teaching a different book, rather than censoring this one and really denying the full impact of the anti-prejudice message that the author is trying to convey. (or maybe don't call on some one who vehemently objected to the initial censoring to read a section out loud that contained the word, I mean come on, that was kind of a dick move).
Although pretty proud of sticking by my principles, and feeling pretty cocky about my civil disobedience, the defense I mounted was completely ineffective.
The most frustrating part of the experience for me was not the punishment, but that after I realized of the some 30 kids in the class probably 5 opposed the censorship, 15 probably didn't give two shits, and 10 felt completely justified censoring someone else's art form. The reason that this was so frustrating was because of the realization that such a large number of people were either apathetic to censorship, or in favor of it, and how it might be inevitable for censorship to become increasingly pervasive.
It is the domain of the artist to decide what is critical to their expression, not the audience. If you dislike the expression, do not subscribe to it (literally or figuratively) to whoever/whatever is depicting it. The only thing worse than terrorists trying to impose their civics on other people is when people cave in under that pressure and encourage them to do it more. Frankly that the topic even warrants a discussion has me deeply offended, but not quite so much that I won't chime in. Censorship of art in terms of expressing part of it, is NOT the artists decision It is the expresser's decision. And in your case, you, the expresser, had a legitimate authority (teacher) over what you could express in class. If I choose to tell an edited version of a story, that is perfectly fine, as long as I don't pretend it is unedited. You are right that editing the text alrtered the impact... has it occured to you that the teacher (and other students) Wanted to alter the impact. That is entirely within the teacher's right, as long as you know it is edited. The fact that You read it also altered the work, your voice and build and reputation at the school all became part of the impact of the work altering it beyond what the artist intended. No. Only the creator of the artwork can express their artwork. An intermediary can then interpret the artwork and then express their interpretation of it. An interpreter might omit a critical bit of information that to the artist was very meaningful, but to the interpreter was dismissed as an insignificant detail. This happens very frequently in movies,music,art,books etc. As such, only the artist can decide what is critical to their expression. An artist accepts that people's interpretations of their work have the potential to be flawed, or even downright backwards. This problem is unavoidable because communication isn't perfect. However deliberately modifying the message is at best incredibly disrespectful to the artist.
The artist can decide what is critical to Their expression of their art.
Once they have let it out though, other people can express that artwork however they like.
I am free to read murder mysteries from the last page, although that is not the way the artist wanted their art expressed.
That doesn't mean I have learned anything about the artist or what they wanted to express... but who says I need to listen to what they wanted to express.
I just need to realize I didn't get what the artist wanted to express.. which is OK, most art I consider for entertainment, and if it gives me some interesting ideas, I really don't care if the artist had those ideas as well.
By editing that one word, the class was expressing not exactly what the artist was expressing. However, they were also expressing differently by reading it out loud in a class and having to do homework assignments on it. I'm sure "To Kill a Mockingbird" was not written with Character analysis questions in the margin, but the teacher has added those. Because the teacher's purpose is not the author's purpose. The author's purpose is only a Small part of the teacher's purpose.
|
On December 17 2010 11:44 Krikkitone wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2010 08:48 No_Roo wrote:On December 17 2010 08:10 Krikkitone wrote:On December 16 2010 06:54 No_Roo wrote:Personal experience with censorship: + Show Spoiler +
When I was in high school I was suspended for 3 days for saying out loud "Your father is a no good nigger lover"
I was in English class, I had been called on to read out loud a section of to kill a mocking bird. (This is a line in the book said by a particularly racist character).
The class had previously decided (via some pseudo-democratic discussion process) despite my and a few other student's objections to omit use of that word because it was offensive.
When I was sent to the administration and asked why I did it, I attempted to defend myself basically as follows:
I read it any way with the deliberate intention of offending people. Not out of spite though, I wanted them to feel offended because that's what the author wanted you to feel when you read it, this book is about prejudice, if the instructor is so concerned about offending someone, then maybe she should consider teaching a different book, rather than censoring this one and really denying the full impact of the anti-prejudice message that the author is trying to convey. (or maybe don't call on some one who vehemently objected to the initial censoring to read a section out loud that contained the word, I mean come on, that was kind of a dick move).
Although pretty proud of sticking by my principles, and feeling pretty cocky about my civil disobedience, the defense I mounted was completely ineffective.
The most frustrating part of the experience for me was not the punishment, but that after I realized of the some 30 kids in the class probably 5 opposed the censorship, 15 probably didn't give two shits, and 10 felt completely justified censoring someone else's art form. The reason that this was so frustrating was because of the realization that such a large number of people were either apathetic to censorship, or in favor of it, and how it might be inevitable for censorship to become increasingly pervasive.
It is the domain of the artist to decide what is critical to their expression, not the audience. If you dislike the expression, do not subscribe to it (literally or figuratively) to whoever/whatever is depicting it. The only thing worse than terrorists trying to impose their civics on other people is when people cave in under that pressure and encourage them to do it more. Frankly that the topic even warrants a discussion has me deeply offended, but not quite so much that I won't chime in. Censorship of art in terms of expressing part of it, is NOT the artists decision It is the expresser's decision. And in your case, you, the expresser, had a legitimate authority (teacher) over what you could express in class. If I choose to tell an edited version of a story, that is perfectly fine, as long as I don't pretend it is unedited. You are right that editing the text alrtered the impact... has it occured to you that the teacher (and other students) Wanted to alter the impact. That is entirely within the teacher's right, as long as you know it is edited. The fact that You read it also altered the work, your voice and build and reputation at the school all became part of the impact of the work altering it beyond what the artist intended. No. Only the creator of the artwork can express their artwork. An intermediary can then interpret the artwork and then express their interpretation of it. An interpreter might omit a critical bit of information that to the artist was very meaningful, but to the interpreter was dismissed as an insignificant detail. This happens very frequently in movies,music,art,books etc. As such, only the artist can decide what is critical to their expression. An artist accepts that people's interpretations of their work have the potential to be flawed, or even downright backwards. This problem is unavoidable because communication isn't perfect. However deliberately modifying the message is at best incredibly disrespectful to the artist. The artist can decide what is critical to Their expression of their art. Once they have let it out though, other people can express that artwork however they like. I am free to read murder mysteries from the last page, although that is not the way the artist wanted their art expressed. That doesn't mean I have learned anything about the artist or what they wanted to express... but who says I need to listen to what they wanted to express. I just need to realize I didn't get what the artist wanted to express.. which is OK, most art I consider for entertainment, and if it gives me some interesting ideas, I really don't care if the artist had those ideas as well. By editing that one word, the class was expressing not exactly what the artist was expressing. However, they were also expressing differently by reading it out loud in a class and having to do homework assignments on it. I'm sure "To Kill a Mockingbird" was not written with Character analysis questions in the margin, but the teacher has added those. Because the teacher's purpose is not the author's purpose. The author's purpose is only a Small part of the teacher's purpose.
What I am suggesting to you is, teach in good faith the book which has a message you want to express. If you have to choose between editing a book or finding a more suitable book, find the more suitable one. Deliberately editing someone else's message and then pushing a bastardized version around is at best extremely disrespectful to the artist. This behavior is not something I want to support or encourage in any way.
When placed in this situation my response will be: civil disobedience and accept the punishment, which virtually all of the time will be nothing because said disobedience is usually quite trivial.
|
On December 16 2010 07:18 Shiragaku wrote:
When in Rome, do as Romans do.
The immigrants should not give up their faith, but do not try to impose it on other people. At least thank the nation for letting them come in the first place.
But people seem to get the idea that ALL Muslims seem to act like that. I know from my personal experience with Muslims in the US is that they are not a bunch of over zealous crusaders and oddly enough, the biggest Muslim nation in the world is Indonesia and we do not hear do not religious battles from there (Use to however)
Actually they have huge problems in some islands with christians vs muslims that made the headlines all over the world!
thousands of deaths
|
Freedom of speech > islamic tolerance. Since they aren't known for being the most tolerant group of people in the world I see no reason as to why we should protect them.
|
The koran also states that muslims should not drink alcohol or do drugs and we all know how that went..
Do all muslims here think Sharia law is acceptable?
Is it acceptable to "circunsize" women clitoris just so that she doesn't take pleasure from sex? Don't muslims like sex? why shouldn't their wifes have also pleasure?
Do all muslims think a wife should be stoned to death because she betrayed her husband? What if a man betrays her wife?
Why is it that some muslims think of "us" as infidels but accept us has humans but don't think of women the same way? what makes a woman inferior to any man?
We have to accept that the writings in koran are old, written by people with much less knowledge then us(they didn't know the earth was round), why should it be taken has laws or even as a way to live your life? Even if we accept the book as true words from the prophet, we have to apply it to our knowledge not the other way around..
Women = man or in some cases way better, so they have the same rights and dutys, and that my friends in 2010 is the only right way of doing things..
In reality the muslim world acts as the christian churches of the mediavel times.
|
On December 13 2010 18:51 Liquid`Jinro wrote:
Of course we shouldnt, if we do Im giving up on this world.
Agree.
Religion is fine, it does some good too. But too much fanaticism is a NO NO.
|
On December 16 2010 17:44 Derminator wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2010 09:49 Sanjuro wrote:
what im saying is that those drawings offends ALL, yes all muslim are offended by those drawings, and why offend someone to just because you want to exercise your freedom of speech is such a load of crap, to me it's just a way to hide bigotry.
You know what offends me? Women not being allowed to show their faces in public because some douche bag might have an impure thought. Little girls having acid splashed in their faces for the offense of going to school. Women not being allowed to work or drive cars, or spend five minutes in a room with a stranger. People being beheaded for adultery. Authors having death sentences put on their heads for writing a book. Artists having their throats slit for creating art. Teenagers being brainwashed into turning themselves into suicide bombers, and killing innocent people in their demented quest for paradise. And of course, I'm offended by Muslims who defend it all by claiming that I just don't understand. I don't WANT to understand the sick and degenerate culture that makes such extremism tolerable. In my opinion, Islamic culture SHOULD be offended on a regular basis, you should be prodded and provoked until you get off your asses and do something to root out this cancer within your ranks. And if you refuse to do it, we will, and to be brutally frank that's going to be a lot more messy. And yes, America has our own extremists, who would murder innocent people to forward their agenda, like Timothy McVeigh. You know what we do to them? We fucking kill them. We don't defend their actions by saying "the FBI is pretty offensive, so those kids in the daycare center kinda had it coming!"
good point
|
On December 17 2010 01:42 Sanjuro wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2010 13:11 ckw wrote:
I don't even see how this can be argued either way, you censor it and they threaten more about new bullsh**, you don't censor it and supposedly they kill people? I'm getting so fed up with these retards, what makes them think killing INNOCENT PEOPLE because of the act of that government or one man. Simply stupid, does America go and purposely kill a bunch of women and children just because they have the same religion as or live in the same area as these sleez bags?
These people who commit the suicide bombings are usually just weak minded beings that get brain washed by superiors. I hope these guys feel like retards when they wake up in hell. No God and no religion has ever said that it is okay to kill people for no reason. this guy only watches Fox news
haha do you really belive that american soldiers never killed muslim civilians?
|
I'm waiting for the day science proves religion wrong.
I think it's just so sad that in the 21st century people still act upon the imaginary will of imaginary gods.
Even if I'm totally wrong and condemned to burn in hell for eternity, you'd think God wanted his creations to grow the fuck up.
|
|
|
On January 09 2011 05:06 Derminator wrote:Since I spent so much time criticizing the Muslim world in this thread, it seems appropriate to post this here. http://english.ahram.org.eg/News/3365.aspxThis is beautiful and inspiring news.
Great to hear of some good news. This really needs to be spread.
|
If anything, they should make MORE cartoons and more fun of the idea of Muhammad just to spit in their faces. Seriously anybody willing to take lives for any reason as a first-resort (for a fucking cartoon???) deserves a lifetime of ridicule for being amongst the dumbest and most degenerate people in existence.
|
On December 17 2010 01:42 Sanjuro wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2010 13:11 ckw wrote:
I don't even see how this can be argued either way, you censor it and they threaten more about new bullsh**, you don't censor it and supposedly they kill people? I'm getting so fed up with these retards, what makes them think killing INNOCENT PEOPLE because of the act of that government or one man. Simply stupid, does America go and purposely kill a bunch of women and children just because they have the same religion as or live in the same area as these sleez bags?
These people who commit the suicide bombings are usually just weak minded beings that get brain washed by superiors. I hope these guys feel like retards when they wake up in hell. No God and no religion has ever said that it is okay to kill people for no reason. this guy only watches Fox news
this guy only watches CNN
|
On January 09 2011 05:06 Derminator wrote:Since I spent so much time criticizing the Muslim world in this thread, it seems appropriate to post this here. http://english.ahram.org.eg/News/3365.aspxThis is beautiful and inspiring news.
I read this, too. Seriously, it almost made me cry a tear of joy. This is the majority of muslims which are sane and peaceful people taking a first stand against extremism. Fuck yeah!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
