Phx-Suns.Net

Indy wrote:Andy, you need to show up to the game get-together tonight so we can further this discussion with Dack. And maybe we can facetime with Dan to get a good discussion going...

Sadly, I did not even know about this until just now, as I do not really follow the suns anymore and so ignore the main forum. I hope you all have a good time.

Ghost wrote:

Indy wrote:Andy, you need to show up to the game get-together tonight so we can further this discussion with Dack. And maybe we can facetime with Dan to get a good discussion going...

Sadly, I did not even know about this until just now, as I do not really follow the suns anymore and so ignore the main forum. I hope you all have a good time.

Still time for you to join us you bum.

Indy wrote:

Ghost wrote:

Indy wrote:Andy, you need to show up to the game get-together tonight so we can further this discussion with Dack. And maybe we can facetime with Dan to get a good discussion going...

Sadly, I did not even know about this until just now, as I do not really follow the suns anymore and so ignore the main forum. I hope you all have a good time.

Still time for you to join us you bum.

The worst part is I worked in North Scottsdale today, not far from zipps.

Nodack wrote:

I agree with a lot of this... still don't see how never criticizing anyone would help, though.

"I think the Muslim religion is violent."- Criticizing

A media site drawing naked cartoons of Mohamed their God and posting it knowing that is a death sentence in Islam isn't criticizing, It's intentionally pushing their buttons hoping it insults them. To me there is a difference.

I don't believe in Christianity, but I am not going to make a cartoon of Jesus having sex with a chicken and post it on the web. That wouldn't be criticism, that would be intentionally trying to insult Christians just because I can. It would make me a serious asshole, but it would be legal.

Not insulting them intentionally can't hurt. Not invading their lands and killing hundreds of thousands of them might even go a little further.

Anyone who holds the belief that simply drawing a cartoon warrants death deserves to have that idea mocked. And doing so by creating a cartoon calls attention to the fact that it is a stupid and backwards, outdated idea. This is the nature of satire.

Nodack, you posted a lot I didn't have time to reply to, so I may be picking at it piece by piece since I'm dog tired right now and need to get to bed.

Anyway, Islam is BS, but there is 1.8 Billion of them, so I try not to piss them off. Christianity is BS too, but there is 2.2 Billion of them and I have to live with them, so I try not to piss them off too. Now that I have not held back my criticism thanks to you guys I'm sure I have offended plenty of you. You asked, no, demanded we all offend whatever religion we want because it's our duty to stand up for free speech. I feel good that I said it. Do you feel good that I said it?

The hell we said that. You are about as wrong as you can be. Nobody here EVER demanded you run around just being offensive for the sake of offending people, because we're allowed to.

What I have said on this thread, plus a little extra because I am not sure you understand my point if you think that I am demanding people be rude for the sake of being rude:

1. If someone did that, they do not deserve to die for it.
2. Satire is a lot more than simply running around insulting people to be insulting. Satirists do not deserve to be killed anymore than someone who is being a much bigger asshole, like the person you seem to think we are demanding that you become.
3. Bad, stupid, and dangerous ideas deserve to be ridiculed. It doesn't matter if these are religious, political, or any other sort of ideas. Note that a religious idea that is ridiculous to me, but not harmful, is not something that I will waste time mocking. But, for example, when I mock a dangerous idea, such as the concept that a raped woman should be forced to marry her rapist, I am not mocking Christians who do not still believe in that ancient law, even though it was supposedly passed down straight from the mouth of their god. If someone today tries to DEFEND that law, however, I will rip into them with everything I have, because that idea is absolutely disgusting and abhorrent to any rational person.
4. It is not enough to simply agree that it's sad cartoonists got murdered over ink on paper. And, it's not acceptable to qualify what we say with something like, "It's an inexcusable tragedy, BUT..." Everything that comes after the "but" defends the actions of the terrorists. Defending the actions of terrorists is wrong. Saying that the cartoon triggered their murder is wrong. The cause of their murder is the disgusting concept that someone should die if they draw Mohammed. The fault here is 100% on the terrorists, not the cartoonists.
4a. Referring back to point 3, many or even most Muslims do not believe a cartoonist deserves to die for drawing Mohammed; therefore, when I mock this barbaric concept, I am not mocking these more rational moderate Muslims. They already understand that it's an awful line in their book, just as most Jews and Christians would not force their daughters to marry their rapist.
5. It is not enough to say that the way to avoid the murder of cartoonists in the future is to simply not offend the cartoonists. Would this work? Possibly, but it requires adopting, or at least accepting, the barbaric idea that one should die for drawing Mohammed. This is not only cowardly, but it is morally wrong. One should not, in any way, appease that disgusting thought by avoiding confrontation with it.
6. To reiterate a point from #5, appeasing terrorists is wrong. It legitimizes their horrific beliefs (even if you do not personally share those beliefs!), and may well lead younger or less-moderate, but non-terrorist, Muslims to adopt those same beliefs. Expose their bad and dangerous ideas for what they are.

Notice how not a single one of those points demands that you try to offend someone just because you are allowed to. You ARE allowed to, of course. And to go back to your Hell's Angels, if you just go start shit with someone because you are allowed, you are, indeed, asking to get your ass kicked (however, being stupid in that case would not justify you being murdered -- although you would be harassing them, which would actually make YOUR actions illegal).

That is not what happened with Charlie Hebdo, and I'm really surprised that you do not see the difference between political satire and being a jackass.

Ghost wrote:That is not what happened with Charlie Hebdo, and I'm really surprised that you do not see the difference between political satire and being a jackass.

I think it was as much of column A as column B.

I don't speak French, nor am I familiar with many of the people and groups they make fun of in the cartoons I have seen, so I'm not qualified to judge this entirely. But I don't buy that they are solely, or even mostly, trying to just offend people. There is a video of them putting together and deciding on a cartoon after a previous attack, and they did not at all seem to be TRYING to offend. It's that difference, I think, that's important. Saying something that you know will offend someone is very, very different than going out of your way to offend them.

I don't speak French either except for a few colorful words I learned on the street.

We missed you at the get together. Before we all get too old you will have to come to at least one get together and before I get too old you guys will have to come to at least one gig.

This thread is getting redundant. I don't think we are that far off in our views. I am playing the role of Muslim defender, but if I had to choose a religion Islam would be my very last choice.

We missed you at the get together. Before we all get too old you will have to come to at least one get together and before I get too old you guys will have to come to at least one gig.

Agreed. Sorry I couldn't make it.

This thread is getting redundant. I don't think we are that far off in our views. I am playing the role of Muslim defender, but if I had to choose a religion Islam would be my very last choice.

But nobody's attacking Muslims, so I don't know why they need defending.

But nobody's attacking Muslims, so I don't know why they need defending.

For the past decade we sent our military into several Muslim countries and killed hundreds of thousands of Muslims and continue to drop bombs on Muslims in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria every day. Most of them are the "bad" guys, but some are civilians in the wrong spot at the wrong time.

I know we are talking about the attack in Paris over a cartoon, but the rift goes a lot deeper than that one event or cartoons IMO.

http://costsofwar.org/article/civilians ... nd-wounded
The decade long war in Afghanistan has continued to take lives with each passing year. As of February 2014, at least 21,000 civilians are estimated to have died violent deaths as a result of the war. The total number of civilians killed in Pakistan may be as high or higher than the toll in Afghanistan, with NGO estimates ranging widely between 20,000 and 50,000 recorded deaths. In Iraq, over 70 percent of those who died of direct war violence have been civilians. Iraq Body Count conservatively estimates that at least 133,000 civilians have been killed in direct violence due to war between the invasion and early May 2014. In addition to the direct consequences of violence represented by these numbers, thousands more Iraqis, Afghans and Pakistanis are falling victim to the dangers of a battered infrastructure and poor health conditions arising from wars. In the case of Iraq, excess deaths indirectly resulting from the war add several times the 133,000 civilians killed directly by violence.

I get the feeling that if I ask any westerner, that there is absolutely no reason for Islam/Muslims to be upset at America. I just want one person to admit that there might be a legit reason for Muslims to be upset at the US. Does anybody ever think why extremism has continued to rise despite us killing Bin Laden, Saddam and all those hundreds of thousands of "terrorists"? More and more are turning extremist, not less. Why is that? I think we had a lot to do with that. If we didn't invade Iraq or Afghanistan would there even be an ISIS? We know there were no terrorists in Iraq until we got there. They all came there to kill the American Crusaders from all over the Mideast. The Abu Grab prison picture selfies probably made quite a few Muslims sign up. The Koran burning added some more. Guantanamo tortures added a few more. The Marines pissing on dead Muslims selfies was worth a quite a few signups I'm sure.

We pissed them off and created an extremist monster that we now have to kill except the more we kill the more we create. It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't thing now.

CNN is showing everything Paris related. I saw a US Muslim cleric being interviewed and he was condemning the violence in Paris and saying how Islam is a religion of peace and was being slandered by the terrorists actions. He also said that imagine someone insulting your mother. Now try to imagine that times a billion and that's what Muslims feel when someone insults their god. He said Muslims must learn to accept that it is going to happen and to not lash out in violence.

I also heard that anti Islam violence is spiking in France right now.
http://www.france24.com/en/20150113-fra ... m-mosques/

Nodack wrote:

But nobody's attacking Muslims, so I don't know why they need defending.

For the past decade we sent our military into several Muslim countries and killed hundreds of thousands of Muslims and continue to drop bombs on Muslims in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria every day. Most of them are the "bad" guys, but some are civilians in the wrong spot at the wrong time.

I know we are talking about the attack in Paris over a cartoon, but the rift goes a lot deeper than that one event or cartoons IMO.

http://costsofwar.org/article/civilians ... nd-wounded
The decade long war in Afghanistan has continued to take lives with each passing year. As of February 2014, at least 21,000 civilians are estimated to have died violent deaths as a result of the war. The total number of civilians killed in Pakistan may be as high or higher than the toll in Afghanistan, with NGO estimates ranging widely between 20,000 and 50,000 recorded deaths. In Iraq, over 70 percent of those who died of direct war violence have been civilians. Iraq Body Count conservatively estimates that at least 133,000 civilians have been killed in direct violence due to war between the invasion and early May 2014. In addition to the direct consequences of violence represented by these numbers, thousands more Iraqis, Afghans and Pakistanis are falling victim to the dangers of a battered infrastructure and poor health conditions arising from wars. In the case of Iraq, excess deaths indirectly resulting from the war add several times the 133,000 civilians killed directly by violence.

I get the feeling that if I ask any westerner, that there is absolutely no reason for Islam/Muslims to be upset at America. I just want one person to admit that there might be a legit reason for Muslims to be upset at the US. Does anybody ever think why extremism has continued to rise despite us killing Bin Laden, Saddam and all those hundreds of thousands of "terrorists"? More and more are turning extremist, not less. Why is that? I think we had a lot to do with that. If we didn't invade Iraq or Afghanistan would there even be an ISIS? There certainly were terrorists before that, but not the numbers we see now. We know there were no terrorists in Iraq until we got there. They all came there to kill the American Crusaders from all over the Mideast. The Abu Grab prison picture selfies probably made quite a few Muslims sign up. The Koran burning added some more. Guantanamo tortures added a few more. The Marines pissing on dead Muslims selfies was worth a quite a few signups I'm sure.

We pissed them off and created an extremist monster that we now have to kill except the more we kill the more we create. It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't thing now.

CNN is showing everything Paris related. I saw a US Muslim cleric being interviewed and he was condemning the violence in Paris and saying how Islam is a religion of peace and was being slandered by the terrorists actions. He also said that imagine someone insulting your mother. Now try to imagine that times a billion and that's what Muslims feel when someone insults their god. He said Muslims must learn to accept that it is going to happen and to not lash out in violence.

I also heard that anti Islam violence is spiking in France right now.
http://www.france24.com/en/20150113-fra ... m-mosques/

Nobody IN THIS FORUM is attacking Muslims. Which means you generated about 10,000 words and then some between you and me defending a position that wasn't under attack, and argued against things that nobody here believed. So...that's not playing devil's advocate, that's you owing me at least three hours of my life back that I spent replying to you. Thanks.

Nodack wrote: I know we are talking about the attack in Paris over a cartoon, but the rift goes a lot deeper than that one event or cartoons IMO.

Yeah, but the thread was about one event, not the overall rift. The murders, the reactions to the murders, the way we handle ourselves with this threat against our speech and press...that's the story of this thread. We'd need a dedicated forum to address the 1500 year history of the mideast and the west, and it wouldn't be enough. On this thread, I now feel like we wasted a lot of time running in circles, and I would like us to not do that next time.

I had a response to your question about who in the west would agree that Muslims have any legit reasons to be upset with America, but I deleted it before posting because it's irrelevant to this thread. The short answer, however, is almost every rational westerner will acknowledge that there is some legitimate grief that we have caused. However, when you conflate these two issues -- the murder of cartoonists and the very, very broad geo-political history of the Middle East and the West, you are confusing the issue. You CAN denounce the murders, categorically and without hesitation, without needing to consider every crime we have committed against them. Those certainly deserve discussion, but when a bunch of people just died, it's a discussion for another time, or at least another thread.

Then if the discussion is only limited to the events in Paris alone then I would say yes, it was a dispicable attack and over a cartoon no less.

Cue the freeze frame high-five between Andy and Dack.

5 pages later. Ha!

I had a response to your question about who in the west would agree that Muslims have any legit reasons to be upset with America, but I deleted it before posting because it's irrelevant to this thread.

Ghost has a point. Asking the question why would Muslims be so angry enough to kill people in Paris is irrelevant to a thread about Muslim terrorists killing people in Paris.

Nodack wrote:

I had a response to your question about who in the west would agree that Muslims have any legit reasons to be upset with America, but I deleted it before posting because it's irrelevant to this thread.

Ghost has a point. Asking the question why would Muslims be so angry enough to kill people in Paris is irrelevant to a thread about Muslim terrorists killing people in Paris.

You left out the third sentence, where I answered your question anyway, and said "almost every rational westerner will acknowledge that there is some legitimate grief that we have caused."

It would be a relevant question if you and all of us were completely ignorant about the history of Islam and the west. However, you are not. So, were you asking rhetorically? I can't see what you were thinking you might get out of that.

The questions "Why does the light turn on when I flip the switch?" and "How does the electromagnetic force work?" are related; in fact, the latter is simply a vastly more broad and complex question than the former. But you would never answer the former by trying to address the latter, because then you will flood the discussion with all sorts of information that will drown out the actual question at hand -- why does the light go on? That's what you did. And in the process, you accused those of us who were trying to have that discussion with you in good faith of making some demands you know we didn't.

I understand you were trying to "defend the Muslims," perhaps in worry that there would be people on the forum coming in and blaming this on the religion, not the perpetrators. But that never happened. Also, what is the value in rehashing the conversation about the entire history of Muslim/Western conflict every time something happens in today's world? There's none.

I was stupid enough to read through the comments on Intragram yesterday after Time reposted the cover from yesterday's issue. People are so stupid, on both sides.

http://www.aol.com/article/2015/01/15/r ... d%3D599335