Religion

Dorian Gray

(13,850 posts)

275. I read the whole exchange

Thu May 7, 2015, 03:32 PM

May 2015

Gellar is terrible. But insinuating in any way that the jihadis who went there to MURDER people that they didn't like deserve perhaps a smidgeon more sympathy than Gellar? They're all reprehensible people. Gellar should be ignored. The jihadis, who attempted to kill people, ended up dead themselves. Probably not a surprising outcome.

I don't and never will have sympathy for any person who will take up arms against people who are expressing themselves, no matter how distastefully, in a way they are legally guaranteed in the US.

As for "keeping" me... I assume that you are arguing/debating your points knowing full well you have a public audience. Usually the point of debate is to convince others that your viewpoint is the correct one. While I was on the fence with the whole discussion you were having, expressing any iota of sympathy for the jihadis lost that simpatico consideration.

That seems obvious to me. Perhaps I should have spelled it out in my first post.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

276 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Up to Speed: Who Is Muhammad Cartoon Contest Organizer Pamela Geller? [View all] cbayer May 2015 OP

Really, cb? trotsky May 2015 #1

Of course. No larger conclusion can be drawn from this incident.Nothing else to see here.Move along. GoneFishin May 2015 #2

Is that what trotsky said? Act_of_Reparation May 2015 #4

You should probably stick with fishin'. n/t trotsky May 2015 #17

LOL.. whathehell May 2015 #101

What's a "First Amendment Absolutist"? beam me up scottie May 2015 #117

One who believes there should be no abridgement of speech anywhere for any reason whathehell May 2015 #119

Do you believe Gellar had no right to hold a contest for cartoons of Mohammed? beam me up scottie May 2015 #131

Do you believe rights come with responsibilities? whathehell May 2015 #133

I don't believe people should be shot because they pissed off the wrong people. beam me up scottie May 2015 #136

I don't think so either, but one should consider the law of probabilities whathehell May 2015 #139

So you are a "First Amendment Absolutist" then. beam me up scottie May 2015 #142

Um, no..We don't have absolute First Amendment rights.. whathehell May 2015 #146

So people who get shot at are only victims if you sympathize with them. beam me up scottie May 2015 #149

They are "victims" if they are hurt/killed -- Idiot Gellar took a chance and KNEW she was doing so. whathehell May 2015 #151

So they have to be physically harmed and/or murdered to be the victim of an attack. beam me up scottie May 2015 #152

Do you consider those killed while willingly playing Russian Roulette "victims"? whathehell May 2015 #153

People who offend muslims are playing Russian Roulette? beam me up scottie May 2015 #157

Answer the question. whathehell May 2015 #159

Nope, not interested in discussing why you think muslims are like loaded guns. beam me up scottie May 2015 #162

I knew you couldn't answer, LOL whathehell May 2015 #173

Are you comparing muslims to a mindless random chance at a empty or full chamber in a gun? AtheistCrusader May 2015 #163

Some do, some don't skepticscott May 2015 #169

Too bad she wasn't killed, huh? Goblinmonger May 2015 #3

Clearly she must have deserved it, because of her opinions. n/t trotsky May 2015 #26

She's a randie, a fan of Gert Wilders, okasha May 2015 #5

She's effective. When someone like her can get people on the left to cheer for her, cbayer May 2015 #6

Who on the left is cheering for her? Who is "embracing" her? skepticscott May 2015 #7

And there you go demonstrating exactly the point cbayer was making. GoneFishin May 2015 #9

Show me where I'm "cheering" for her skepticscott May 2015 #11

No doubt that she is laughing her ass off at everyone who she fooled with the "free speech" ruse. GoneFishin May 2015 #10

Go ahead and explain why skepticscott May 2015 #12

Why would I explain either of those things when I agree with neither of your two assertions? GoneFishin May 2015 #15

Then you have no basis for your assertion skepticscott May 2015 #24

I made no such assertion. I assert that she would not have the least interest in such drawings, and GoneFishin May 2015 #25

Her motivation was to make a political point skepticscott May 2015 #44

I made no such assertion. You try again. GoneFishin May 2015 #46

You asserted that her primary motivation skepticscott May 2015 #49

She's not about free speech. Do you stand with Pamela Geller? cbayer May 2015 #28

Do you stand with those that wanted to kill her? Goblinmonger May 2015 #40

Sorry, I misread your post as sarcasm and now understand that it is not. cbayer May 2015 #42

"nothing to do with free speech" trotsky May 2015 #48

You mistake principle for cheering. LiberalAndProud May 2015 #14

I don't mistake principles for cheering. cbayer May 2015 #30

Wow. Really cheering, huh? LiberalAndProud May 2015 #32

Doubt it, but make the effort to look around before you do. cbayer May 2015 #35

Support for the principle of free speech, yes. trotsky May 2015 #36

Damned right I support her right to organize controversial events. LiberalAndProud May 2015 #67

I also support her right to organize any controversial events she wants and cbayer May 2015 #71

Show me one post celebrating what she did. LiberalAndProud May 2015 #73

There are many posts and threads right now championing her 1st amendment rights. cbayer May 2015 #76

So. I'm cheering. Thanks for clearing that up for me. LiberalAndProud May 2015 #79

Your welcome, I guess. cbayer May 2015 #81

If "championing her 1st amendment rights" is "cheering" then I'm guilty too. beam me up scottie May 2015 #82

Welcome to the squad, bmus. LiberalAndProud May 2015 #84

Lol! rug May 2015 #102

Championing someone's 1st amendment rights is not 'cheering' or 'celebrating' those people muriel_volestrangler May 2015 #126

I explained as best I could what I meant. cbayer May 2015 #129

I've been reading a lot of the threads on this, and haven't seen anyone cheering for the organizers muriel_volestrangler May 2015 #132

There has been a process as the day has gone on. cbayer May 2015 #137

I've read several threads by cali, and they don't reply to anything anyone has written muriel_volestrangler May 2015 #141

You know, I hate to indulge this kind of "find me a actual post, I will wait" bullshit, but this one cbayer May 2015 #210

Why is needing some actual examples 'bullshit'? muriel_volestrangler May 2015 #213

Great sigline, m_v. n/t trotsky May 2015 #217

Why are we arguing about this? cbayer May 2015 #174

"Ok, no one was in any way showing support for Geller at any point today." trotsky May 2015 #216

If you're championing Pam Geller's First Amendment rights skepticscott May 2015 #145

Many lawyers who worked at the ACLU actually left it because of that decision whathehell May 2015 #135

Oh, for cripes sake...are you serious? skepticscott May 2015 #83

I am totally for people's right to express their opinions and totally against people being shot for Warren Stupidity May 2015 #103

Clearly you don't. LiberalAndProud May 2015 #255

Clearly I don't what? cbayer May 2015 #270

"It's possible to defend people who want to draw pictures and still condemn this hate monger" trotsky May 2015 #34

It seems like the guys out to commit brutal murder skepticscott May 2015 #8

Sympathizer? No. Fan of free speech? Yes. Goblinmonger May 2015 #20

That is a dishonest and digusting smear, and you should be ashamed of yourself. trotsky May 2015 #27

Horrors! rug May 2015 #104

I think the last count for personal attacks on cbayer okasha May 2015 #172

Yep. whathehell May 2015 #147

I'm just a glad I'm up to speed... MellowDem May 2015 #13

Which victim is that? Pam Geller? cbayer May 2015 #31

Her, and everyone targeted that night... MellowDem May 2015 #41

I'm not defending them in any way whatsoever. cbayer May 2015 #43

Sorry, but trying to shift blame onto others skepticscott May 2015 #45

She IS a victim... MellowDem May 2015 #51

Sorry, I'm not going to defend this despicable person. cbayer May 2015 #53

You don't have to defend her views... MellowDem May 2015 #54

I will defend her and anyone else's right to free speech and have not said cbayer May 2015 #55

And what is that role, that you keep claiming skepticscott May 2015 #60

What is her role in this? MellowDem May 2015 #66

She orchestrated this entire event. She is not a victim. cbayer May 2015 #69

Just like I'm not a victim if I'm raped "because" I wore a short skirt? beam me up scottie May 2015 #74

Are you asctually comparing short skirts to hate speech? rug May 2015 #106

No, and you know full well. AtheistCrusader May 2015 #110

It's an obnoxious, demeaning and repulsive analogy. rug May 2015 #118

No, it's not. It's devastatingly accurate. AtheistCrusader May 2015 #121

"devastatingly accurate"? rug May 2015 #122

I was the victim of a violent attack because I "provoked" a man by wearing a short skirt. beam me up scottie May 2015 #125

A rape victim is not comparable to Geller. rug May 2015 #127

No, but the people who say we deserved it are comparable. beam me up scottie May 2015 #130

I got shot at by the Klan at an anti-Klan rally. rug May 2015 #134

And if you had been marching with the Klan and been shot at you'd still be a victim. beam me up scottie May 2015 #138

Tell me. If you were in the Weimar Repblic in 1931, what wold you do abot the Brown Shirts? rug May 2015 #140

People who are shot at *even if they're using hate speech* are still victims of a violent crime. beam me up scottie May 2015 #150

It depends on how close the hate speech is to a hate-motivated action. rug May 2015 #154

That's not what I'm arguing. beam me up scottie May 2015 #161

I'll go along with that. rug May 2015 #165

I don't imagine it's easy to prove that hate speech is an incitement to violence. beam me up scottie May 2015 #166

"She got what she wanted." okasha May 2015 #176

That doesn't mean I think she deserved to be attacked. beam me up scottie May 2015 #177

The people Geller endangered are victims. okasha May 2015 #180

The people at the show were participants just like Geller. beam me up scottie May 2015 #182

Geller set it up. She was far more than a "participant." okasha May 2015 #185

So she deserved to be attacked it because she set it up? beam me up scottie May 2015 #187

No. okasha May 2015 #192

Responsible to whom? beam me up scottie May 2015 #195

To those she endangered and might endanger in future. okasha May 2015 #199

But you're still insisting she's not the victim of a violent attack? beam me up scottie May 2015 #201

One more time, and we're done. okasha May 2015 #205

"A provocateur is not a victim" beam me up scottie May 2015 #207

On second thought-- okasha May 2015 #208

What you think the intent was doesn't matter. beam me up scottie May 2015 #209

"she asked for it" in a different context is obvious victim blaming. nt. Warren Stupidity May 2015 #220

Those people are scumbags Dorian Gray May 2015 #261

Thank you, Dorian Gray, even CAIR supported Geller's right to hold that contest: beam me up scottie May 2015 #271

But your free, non-hate speech, while admirable, also 'led' to a hateful, dangerous, violent action muriel_volestrangler May 2015 #143

Oh no, there was a lot of hate speech, all directed at the Klan. rug May 2015 #148

You had every right to participate in that rally free from harm or threat of harm. AtheistCrusader May 2015 #158

Analyzing hate speech through a lens of victimhood leads to very distorted conclusions. rug May 2015 #164

I am ignoring the nature of her content. AtheistCrusader May 2015 #167

I don't think it reached that level either. rug May 2015 #168

Walking down the street minding your own business is not the same as orchestrating a hatefest. AlbertCat May 2015 #235

. rug May 2015 #242

Yes I see that MY point... AlbertCat May 2015 #245

No, they aren't a provocation. That's the point. AtheistCrusader May 2015 #155

I know the precise legal meaning of provoke and incite. "Short skirt" ain't in it. rug May 2015 #156

Neither is protected speech. AtheistCrusader May 2015 #160

She provokes people Dorian Gray May 2015 #260

No, I'm comparing criminals who attack others because they're "provoked". beam me up scottie May 2015 #113

You're comparing a short skirt to deliberately provacativer hate speech. rug May 2015 #120

I'm responding to cbayer's victim blaming "She orchestrated this entire event. She is not a victim." beam me up scottie May 2015 #123

Neither cbayer nor anyone else is arguing Geller o ranyone else deserves to be shot. rug May 2015 #124

Thank you. beam me up scottie May 2015 #128

I have no problem understanding... MellowDem May 2015 #75

BTW, here is a nice image of your victim. cbayer May 2015 #57

Let's fucking kill her. Goblinmonger May 2015 #59

Which is relevant to her free speech rights... skepticscott May 2015 #61

Ad hominem isn't a point... MellowDem May 2015 #68

We agree. No one would be justified in murdering her. cbayer May 2015 #72

Defending the free speech rights of those you despise Goblinmonger May 2015 #56

Aw, poor Pammy and her widdle hate group whathehell May 2015 #144

Really? Goblinmonger May 2015 #170

But, but, but, she's a victim! Just like a rape victim at a frat party! cbayer May 2015 #175

Truth. okasha May 2015 #179

I've seen much of DU come around today, and that's been good. cbayer May 2015 #181

Oh, yeah. okasha May 2015 #191

You've got that right. cbayer May 2015 #193

Except you've claimed over and over that this is NOT about free speech skepticscott May 2015 #215

Apparently you can't distinguish either skepticscott May 2015 #214

Why did it endanger innocent people at face value? Goblinmonger May 2015 #218

Maher and many other critics of Islam have been frequently called "racists." trotsky May 2015 #219

You can say that again... MellowDem May 2015 #211

LOL! whathehell May 2015 #227

Unbelievable. cbayer May 2015 #231

Un-fucking-believable shit going down here. AlbertCat May 2015 #232

No one has defended any terrorists that I can see. cbayer May 2015 #233

In #144, to which you were replying, whathehell said they felt more sorry for the terrorists muriel_volestrangler May 2015 #234

I guess you could interpret that as defense, but that's not what she actually said. cbayer May 2015 #236

and not dissimilar to the actors in this horrible scenario. AlbertCat May 2015 #237

Ridding the world of any group that you are ideologically opposed to is the same thing. cbayer May 2015 #238

You are so full of shit, AlbertCat never said they wanted to get rid of religious people. beam me up scottie May 2015 #240

Pretty despicable sleight of hand you just pulled. AtheistCrusader May 2015 #241

that was incredibly vicious to say. AlbertCat May 2015 #246

It would be exactly the same thing as Pam Geller wanting to rid the world of muslims. AlbertCat May 2015 #243

Not nonsense at all. cbayer May 2015 #248

Why do you keep lying about what AlbertCat said, cbayer? beam me up scottie May 2015 #250

It IS nonsense AlbertCat May 2015 #251

Most of the stuff I post is nonsense? cbayer May 2015 #254

Most of the stuff I post is nonsense? AlbertCat May 2015 #256

Reasonable people were able to condemn both the gunmen and Geller, and that's a rational position AlbertCat May 2015 #244

She is as bad, imo, just in a different way. Evil is evil. Are you defending her? cbayer May 2015 #249

Are you defending her? AlbertCat May 2015 #252

Ok. I was just playing on your accusation of defense earlier in the sub-thread. cbayer May 2015 #253

I was just playing on your accusation..... AlbertCat May 2015 #258

Evil is not always just evil.....evil is subjective....and has degrees. AlbertCat May 2015 #257

Wow... MellowDem May 2015 #212

Wow... whathehell May 2015 #226

I said why... MellowDem May 2015 #229

Idiot Geller deserves no sympathy in my opinion whathehell May 2015 #239

I don't think she deserves sympathy either. MellowDem May 2015 #247

Well Dorian Gray May 2015 #262

Well whathehell May 2015 #269

I read the whole exchange Dorian Gray May 2015 #275

Okay. whathehell May 2015 #276

So if i think people edhopper May 2015 #16

Are you embracing Pam Geller and her organization? cbayer May 2015 #33

Are you now, or have you ever been.... Warren Stupidity May 2015 #37

Groups that have nothing to do with free speech?? skepticscott May 2015 #47

Just because the victim is an unpleasant person with vile speech doesn't make it ok to attack her AtheistCrusader May 2015 #52

No more than I embrace edhopper May 2015 #62

This isn't about civil rights. This is about Ms. Geller's war on american muslims cbayer May 2015 #63

Does she deserve to be killed, cbayer? trotsky May 2015 #65

Why do you keep harping on the fact skepticscott May 2015 #78

Oh sure, and I suppose you embrace the Klan, too! beam me up scottie May 2015 #64

I didn't know that was the equation edhopper May 2015 #70

Who? AtheistCrusader May 2015 #18

She is the asshole fundie that pissed off the even bigger asshole fundies that ended up dead snooper2 May 2015 #19

I've only heard one view of the attack/cause but it sounds like an attack on AtheistCrusader May 2015 #21

Are we allowed? Sure. trotsky May 2015 #22

I'm sure we'll be told by certain parties, just how much is too much on the AtheistCrusader May 2015 #23

You're always ALLOWED to say all sorts of stupid things. Erich Bloodaxe BSN May 2015 #29

I find life is too short to go through it worrying if my skirt is too short. AtheistCrusader May 2015 #38

That's your choice. Erich Bloodaxe BSN May 2015 #39

Hey, look at all these "anti-Muslim bigots" lining up to support Pam Geller! trotsky May 2015 #50

I'm sure some people are really irritated to find out skepticscott May 2015 #58

Ms. Geller has a right to speak freely. guillaumeb May 2015 #77

Interesting. I wonder if there will be any legal ramifications of this. cbayer May 2015 #80

How should she be "stopped", cbayer? beam me up scottie May 2015 #85

Because we should expect Muslims to be violent. LiberalAndProud May 2015 #86

The member said nothing about expecting Muslims to be violent. cbayer May 2015 #87

"Pretty much anyone can be incited to violence if pushed far enough" beam me up scottie May 2015 #89

Yes, actually I do. LiberalAndProud May 2015 #90

You are not aware of acts of violence perpetrated by any religious groups but muslims? cbayer May 2015 #92

Reductio ad absurdum doesn't move me. LiberalAndProud May 2015 #97

Yes, LAP. I'm aware of what moves you. cbayer May 2015 #98

Wild Thing! Warren Stupidity May 2015 #223

Using your "premise" the cartoonists at Charlie Hebdo were inciting violence too. beam me up scottie May 2015 #88

Stephane Charbonnier was a provocateur. guillaumeb May 2015 #222

well at least you are consistent in your victim blaming. Warren Stupidity May 2015 #224

The people who were killed are victims. I do not blame them. guillaumeb May 2015 #225

Stephane Charbonnier - killed. Warren Stupidity May 2015 #228

Try rereading what I said. guillaumeb May 2015 #230

She didn't incite the gunmen to violence, though muriel_volestrangler May 2015 #221

I detest this woman but violence is wrong. hrmjustin May 2015 #91

Et tu, justin? LiberalAndProud May 2015 #93

oh? hrmjustin May 2015 #95

C'mon justin. Keep up! cbayer May 2015 #178

I always knew you were Satan Incarnate! hrmjustin May 2015 #183

I am the Satan Incarnate of all trolls. There is no one more satany or incarnate or trolly than I. cbayer May 2015 #186

I always love it with you cause trouble. hrmjustin May 2015 #189

I try to stay out of trouble, but it seems trouble always comes looking for me. cbayer May 2015 #190

Being from NYC I have no idea how to write a country song. hrmjustin May 2015 #194

Ok, we could do some club music then. cbayer May 2015 #196

Lol that could be fight song for the religion room. hrmjustin May 2015 #198

Chorus: okasha May 2015 #202

Holy shit that was so freaking funny! hrmjustin May 2015 #203

Love it. I think we're going to the grammys, girlfriend. cbayer May 2015 #204

We can do it! okasha May 2015 #206

LOL okasha May 2015 #197

I know! The paparazzi is (are?) driving me nuts! cbayer May 2015 #200

I feel nothing but contempt for Ms. Geller, but that doesn't mean I think she should cbayer May 2015 #94

Agreed. hrmjustin May 2015 #96

You just posted you wanted her "stopped" beam me up scottie May 2015 #99

At a red light, for example. Warren Stupidity May 2015 #109

I wish she'd make up her mind, either she's cheering for Gellar or not. beam me up scottie May 2015 #111

Uh oh! Dissention in the ranks! About Face! March! AtheistCrusader May 2015 #100

Welcome aboard CBayer. Warren Stupidity May 2015 #107

Well you are now officially in the Pam Geller fan club! Warren Stupidity May 2015 #105

I have met the woman and can tell you she is a despicable woman. hrmjustin May 2015 #108

^ That's what I'm saying. LiberalAndProud May 2015 #112

Thank you for explaining. hrmjustin May 2015 #114

Thank you. AtheistCrusader May 2015 #115

Thank you Justin. beam me up scottie May 2015 #116

I haven't met her but would have guessed that is the case Goblinmonger May 2015 #171

a dark haired ann coulter. DesertFlower May 2015 #184

Worse, imo. She's pretty effective and is looking for an all out war. cbayer May 2015 #188

The fact Pam Geller is a provocative firebrand is irrelevant. Yorktown May 2015 #259

Your support of Pam Geller and her agenda is really quite disturbing. cbayer May 2015 #263

The fact you share some views with violent believers disturbs me. Yorktown May 2015 #264

What views do I share with violent believers? cbayer May 2015 #265

You share their view religions should be shielded from mockery Yorktown May 2015 #266

Again, you have made that up. cbayer May 2015 #267

cbayer: "I agree with you about Ms. Geller and would like to see her stopped." beam me up scottie May 2015 #272

There is NOTHING in Yorktown's post indicating support of Geller or "her agenda." trotsky May 2015 #268

Well she said that "championing her 1st amendment rights" is "cheering" Geller. beam me up scottie May 2015 #273

Oh FFS. trotsky May 2015 #274