Originally
posted by
SAM_DANGER:
So then the first paragraph of my first post in this thread would be correct. In a world where TAN makes the rules on who can say what, any group which wishes to silence all dissent only needs to demonstrate a propensity for violence.
To begin, there's no need to get personal. If it wasn't your intent, that's what it comes across as.
Anyway, your binary argument doesn't work. There are things that are reasonable and unreasonable (yes, it's subjective, but that's not the point. To pre-empt your argument, conservatives will say "oh well if we allow gay marriage, where does it end? What about pedophilia and beastiality?" It's a stupid argument, so please don't make it). If there is a group that bombs abortion clinics, then should we stop abortion? No, that's *unreasonable*, because in contemporary society, a woman should have the choice to abort a child if she wants. Therefore, to capitulate to that would be sheer nonsense - find the domestic terrorists and arrest them.
But to make a film, deceive the cast and crew (who are suing the director, by the way), and then dub over it in post-production with the complete intent to slander a population you KNOW will get violent, is irresponsible and unnecessary. That film was unreasonable. His irresponsibility led to the death of an Ambassador and 3 staff. Think about that for a second. Ignorance of the fallout is not a legitimate excuse. He was irresponsible and it led to deaths. If you are a lifeguard and show up to work late and someone drowns on your watch, whether you show remorse or not is irrelevant. Your irresponsibility led to someone's death. Absolutely un-fluffing-acceptable.
Citizens in a society have a duty to be responsible. You don't have the right to act like a complete jerk. You don't have the right to yell "fire!" in a crowded theater. You don't have the right to call for the assassination of the president. You don't have the right to incite a mob into violence...etc
That's why we have laws. Because people AREN'T responsible. That's why there's laws against drunk driving...etc. When citizens can't act responsibly, laws need to be put into effect to dissuade irresponsibility.
Do you really see nothing wrong with that position? It is fine to offend Christians, because they're mostly harmless. But it is not fine to offend members of a religion which has a small number of followers who are willing to commit murder in the name of God at the slightest provocation. That doesn't seem incredibly backwards to you? I honestly can't think of a more illogical position to take on the issue of free speech.
You are confusing the issues. If a small minority of Christians (in the small thousands) would start burning down embassies and killing people at getting offended, I'd condemn that just as vociferously. I don't see how that's illogical at all. I'd say it's consistent.
I'm going to start the Church of Reagan...et al.
That is textbook domestic terrorism. I'd ban the organization and arrest the leaders. Your goal is to coerce a population into agreeing with you by using methods to terrorize the public if you don't get your way. Perhaps you'd like to try another example?
(If your example was to mock Islam, you should try reading up on the tenets of the religion first)