Originally Posted by playwrite

I realize that this may be news to a numb skull like yourself, but the world is highly complex and interlinked particularly in regard to religion. One would think that would be obvious given how widespread the protests have been against the film.

One way to avoid wars is to practice diplomacy. The art of diplomacy has been practiced for hundreds of years and it is not unusual for a nation's diplomacy corps to take casualties in the line of their duties for their countries.

Maybe take you head out of your rear and learn something about the real world?

Still waiting to hear how the ambasador to Libya is securing my freedom of speech. If you don't know, that's okay too.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

10:1 odds are it was Al Qaeda and/or affiliated groups.

Keep in mind that many so-called "terrorist" groups, including Al Qaeda, are little more than mercenaries for various interests and/or nation-states (plausible deniability). This certainly could be an operation using Al Qaeda assets but the operation probably didn't originate from within Al Qaeda's organization.

Originally Posted by playwrite

That is a history that took place closer to 2,000 rather than just a 1,000 years ago of very different cultures. The purpose of the film was not to be an informative piece for the Discovery Channel; it was very purposefully done to denigrate, degrade, disrespect and likely incite over a billion people. It's bigotry at its worse and it surprises me that you are one of the ones who can't walk and chew gum at the same time.

I am OK with saying that this is an awful movie, with some falsehoods, and likely intent to insult. But the biggest offense in the film is the fact that all references to Islam are dubbed in and the actors were duped about what they were actually making. The only real crime here is fraud against those who worked on the film.

I guess what I'm wondering is what, besides simply saying the movie is crap, should people do about it? Are you advocating any sort of legal action purely on the basis of the content of the film or supposed intent of the creators? I'm guessing you're not. If not, then saying the filmmakers are "responsible" for other people's violent acts is hyperbole. You don't think they're responsible or otherwise you would want them punished. But, I don't think you do, since that would be censorship.

So, the only real difference between our positions is that you want to condemn the film slightly more loudly than I do. Which strikes me as no real difference at all.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Just as it is with the freedom of speech, people can abuse the FACT that other families have sent their kids into harms way (and, I'll include the intelligent services and diplomatic corps as well as military) so that folks like you can safely sit there scratching your nuts while pontificating on how it is just peachy fine for a douche bag's bigotry to set up the cover for our enemies to take out one of our own.

What cover? It's only cover if you accept the barbaric premise that violence is an appropriate response to mere words. Every day is Draw Mohammed Day when you live in a free society.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Not to wish you any harm, but I do sometimes wish chicken shits could experience coming under fire in a foreign land for just an hour or so. After you finish shitting your pants, I'm pretty sure your pontificating would be completely different - with or without nuts.

I hear this argument from plenty of people who have never been in combat, and don't hear it from quite a few who have. I should also point out that people are quite diverse in their reaction to combat. Some panic, some endure stoically, some are thrilled by it. It's hard to know which response I'd have, and very arguable which one is the right one. I'm glad I probably won't have to find out, and we should not lament that this experience is rare in our society.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

Still waiting to hear how the ambasador to Libya is securing my freedom of speech. If you don't know, that's okay too.

I'm sure that among the thousands killed on 9/11 that more than just a few also, like you, had no idea of how are diplomatic corp works every day with other government and non-government entities to protect our interests - including our lives as well as our values.

At first, I'm stunned that someone who professes so much opposition to our military involvement overseas also has so little regard for the alternative of our diplomatic efforts. But then I remember that being an isolationist is one of the key characteristics of those that live in magic pony land.

Originally Posted by playwrite

But then I remember that being an isolationist is one of the key characteristics of those that live in magic pony land.

Would you please just stop mischaracterizing what other people are saying then brushing it off with your "magic pony" trump card?

Your version of reality and its possibilities is not more objective or real than anyone else's: It just seems more limited to the outdated "conventional wisdom" that has to be thrown out before a crisis can be resolved.

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

Would you please just stop mischaracterizing what other people are saying then brushing it off with your "magic pony" trump card?

Your version of reality and its possibilities is not more objective or real than anyone else's: It just seems more limited to the outdated "conventional wisdom" that has to be thrown out before a crisis can be resolved.

actually i find playwrite (and b. rush) rather refreshing in contrast to the conventional view on this site that "free speech" not only trumps common courtesy, but it also trumps common sense.

yes, be free to be the biggest asshole you can possibly be. you are protected by the first amendment.

but should you be protected from the real consequences of the insults you throw out?

Originally Posted by playwrite

At first, I'm stunned that someone who professes so much opposition to our military involvement overseas also has so little regard for the alternative of our diplomatic efforts. But then I remember that being an isolationist is one of the key characteristics of those that live in magic pony land.

Reading the above, I fear I translated "those that live in magic pony land" as "those whose values and world view conflict with mine, and thus conflict with my perception of reality."

Is isolationism really that key a characteristic? Is there only one 'magic pony land,' or do you recognize the Valley of the Unicorns, Strawberry Shortcake's Neighborhood and Mordor as separate and distinct places?

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

Would you please just stop mischaracterizing what other people are saying then brushing it off with your "magic pony" trump card?

Your version of reality and its possibilities is not more objective or real than anyone else's: It just seems more limited to the outdated "conventional wisdom" that has to be thrown out before a crisis can be resolved.

You and Copper are welcome to prove me wrong, but he has made it pretty clear that he opposes much, if any, of our military presence overseas - very much along the lines of Justin's belief that we only do what we do because we hate brown people. He now is suggesting that our diplomatic corps has nothing to do with making US citizens safer in the world and promoting our value system. When you peel away the onion layer, these stands lead to either someone who espouses isolationism, is incredibly ignorant, or is mentally deficient. I thought belief in magic ponies was being kind; kindness is just my nature, so if you want to make the case for the other options, have at it.

Originally Posted by the bouncer

actually i find playwrite (and b. rush) rather refreshing in contrast to the conventional view on this site that "free speech" not only trumps common courtesy, but it also trumps common sense.

yes, be free to be the biggest asshole you can possibly be. you are protected by the first amendment.

but should you be protected from the real consequences of the insults you throw out?

Insults, like?

By the way, do you go to church/temple/mosque every Sunday and commit blasphemy against what the other 80% of the world believes? I believe you have that right, no matter who throws a temper tantrum because they disagree.

Originally Posted by B Butler

Reading the above, I fear I translated "those that live in magic pony land" as "those whose values and world view conflict with mine, and thus conflict with my perception of reality."

Is isolationism really that key a characteristic? Is there only one 'magic pony land,' or do you recognize the Valley of the Unicorns, Strawberry Shortcake's Neighborhood and Mordor as separate and distinct places?

Whatever floats their boat, but it is still not dealing with reality.

I do find it amusing that it is primarily our resident Xers choosing to live or at least espouse idealist fantasy worlds.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

Im just dying to know how the ambassador to Libya is "maintaining my right to freedom of speech." I was unaware that Libya posed such a significant threat to the bill of rights.

Boilerplate isn't meant to be responded to or engaged with. Its purpose, in fact, is to suppress critical thought. Understanding that helps the whole thing make a lot more sense.

Originally Posted by playwrite

You and Copper are welcome to prove me wrong, but he has made it pretty clear that he opposes much, if any, of our military presence overseas - very much along the lines of Justin's belief that we only do what we do because we hate brown people. ...

Wow is your reading comprehension sub-par. I've never said, nor implied, that you are fine with wog-murder because you hate them. The fact that you simply consider the fuzzy-wuzzies sub-human is more than sufficient explanation. Emotional involvement might even be a hindrance to doing the job efficiently.

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

Insults, like?

By the way, do you go to church/temple/mosque every Sunday and commit blasphemy against what the other 80% of the world believes? I believe you have that right, no matter who throws a temper tantrum because they disagree.

What is it with you guys? Do you have some kind of space alien installed filter on your hearing?

No one is refuting the right. What we are saying is the guy who made this film for the purpose of inciting hate is an a-hole. Anyone who sanctimoniously reminds us of his right but doesn't in the same sentence identify him as an a-hole for abusing that right is also being an a-hole.

From there, if you want to pontificate on the many Muslims being, in your opinion, too sensitive about their religion, be my guest.

Maybe then you could also state the obvious that many radical Muslims will take every advantage to not only hurt Americans but they're hoping to do it in a way that drives even a greater wedge between the Islamic world and everyone else. Perhaps with a tad of insight you could further point out that the radicals are not only very grateful when an a-hole gives them that opportunity but their cover is reinforced by the Ugly American chorus that talks only about the a-hole's right to his bigotry and that Muslims just need to get over it (implying, of course, that we will bluster and blunder again into invading another one of their countries and kill a lot more of them than they will kill of us (or more precisely, the kids from other American families than your own)).

Then you could really make things clear by stating the also obvious that today's Republicans will also take advantage of this and lie (e.g. somebody apologized to the attackers) about everything all the time over and over again for their benefit. That they do so regardless of the consequences it may have for our people (typically from other American families) that actually afford them their freedom of speech to lie about everything all the time over and over again.

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

I am OK with saying that this is an awful movie, with some falsehoods, and likely intent to insult. But the biggest offense in the film is the fact that all references to Islam are dubbed in and the actors were duped about what they were actually making. The only real crime here is fraud against those who worked on the film.

I guess what I'm wondering is what, besides simply saying the movie is crap, should people do about it? Are you advocating any sort of legal action purely on the basis of the content of the film or supposed intent of the creators? I'm guessing you're not. If not, then saying the filmmakers are "responsible" for other people's violent acts is hyperbole. You don't think they're responsible or otherwise you would want them punished. But, I don't think you do, since that would be censorship.

So, the only real difference between our positions is that you want to condemn the film slightly more loudly than I do. Which strikes me as no real difference at all.



What cover? It's only cover if you accept the barbaric premise that violence is an appropriate response to mere words. Every day is Draw Mohammed Day when you live in a free society.



I hear this argument from plenty of people who have never been in combat, and don't hear it from quite a few who have. I should also point out that people are quite diverse in their reaction to combat. Some panic, some endure stoically, some are thrilled by it. It's hard to know which response I'd have, and very arguable which one is the right one. I'm glad I probably won't have to find out, and we should not lament that this experience is rare in our society.

If it has to be a criminal offense in order for you to condemn it, then there is a huge difference beween our positions.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

"Have to" or not, many people don't, yet are still Catholics and have not been excommunicated. So it's just your opinion that people who don't follow all the teachings of Catholicism are not Catholics.

If you want to have the opinion that someone who may be culturally born into a Catholic background is still a Catholic even though they don't follow the teachings of the Church - that's up to you. I don't consider them to be. You don't have to be formally excommunicated (in fact, that's extremely rare for that to take place) in order to no longer be part of the Church.

I would argue that if someone doesn't follow the teachings of the Church - intentionally and repeatedly as opposed to making a mistake and realizing it was a mistake as the Church teaches and asking for repentance for it - than no, they are not Catholic. I'd argue the same for any religious background.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

In a sense yes; they can put forth teachings. But there is no religious faith or church whose members in fact all follow all those teachings.

We're all hypocrites of some extent or another - including me and including you. The difference is in realizing something is wrong and asking for forgiveness of doing it - v. not caring that it's wrong and doing it anyway without any care in the world if it is against dogmatic/doctrinal teachings.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

That's right; teachings are interpreted. The Rani's point about murder came to my mind. The commandments say Thou Shalt Not Kill, yet the church propounds just war theories. So what does "Thou Shalt Not Kill" really mean?

Or they just didn't live up to the teachings. That's where the Romans verse "we have all fallen short of the glory of God" comes in. Christianity says you need Jesus to bridge the gap. Or I would just say, realization of our essential divinity is needed.

Yes - it is interpretation.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

You, Kinser, and The Rani all seem to have an exaggerated view of your own perfection, maybe so that you guys can look down on others who aren't as pure as you. Or if not, how do you justify your harsh opinion about those who deviate and can't live up to the highest standards you believe in? The religious right in particular has a blind spot about their own imperfections, but I noticed Kinser as a member of the atheist left has the same condition. I don't mean to be harsh; I have my blind spots too. A little humility works at times, is all I'm saying.

Some philosophers argue, and I tend to agree, that the teachings of Jesus were intended as something that could not be followed, but people encounter wisdom in the attempt to follow them.

I'm sure abortion is the main issue here. I tend to think there are good points on both sides of the debate, and that we should all just agree on using the abortion pill and let it go, instead of using this never-ending debate to score political points.

Where the hell are you getting this nonsense from? First - you're hardly one to be casting stones in attempting to judge me or Rani or anyone else through a lens of "perfectionism". You're the one who claims can read the future through astrological signs and activity and can predict things. That's a sheer level of arrogance I certainly can't relate to at all.

Second, where have I ever argued that I'm better than you or anyone else? I'm certainly no better than anyone else here. I have my own faults and vices and issues I deal with every day. I'm far from perfect. And I certainly don't look down on you or anyone else even when we disagree.

j.p.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Boilerplate isn't meant to be responded to or engaged with. Its purpose, in fact, is to suppress critical thought. Understanding that helps the whole thing make a lot more sense.

Is it because you all are mentally deficient or because you lack imagination?

In case you don't read the news or are somewhat forgetful, Libya had a civil war this year. The bad guys lost but that doesn't mean they’ve all gone to heavan or have become good guys. They're still around and they very much want to get back into control or at the very least get back at those, including Americans, which they believe facilitated their demise.

Are you and Coop with me on this? It's not too much, all at once, is it? I can wait if you have to ponder this for awhile, maybe make a phone call or two. Run it by a 5th grader maybe?

Okay, let's assume you can handle it so far.

An embassy, particularly in a hostile area, tends to be the hub of not only our diplomatic activities but many other activities such as fostering trade and cultural exchange to help promote partnerships and peace. Now does that need some explanation? If so, check with that 5th grader you have on call.

Also, often an embassy is where a lot of folks in our Intelligence community might just happen to get together. Were you aware that one of the four Americans killed was a former Navy Seal who was in the country tracking down major weaponry including possible shoulder-launched SAMs?

Now grab that 5th grader and see if he can make up for your lack of imagination on what might kind of mischief some conspiring bad guys who hate us might be able to do with some shoulder launched SAMs. You know a lot of bad guys might not be as imaginative and see planes crashing into buildings. They may be as mentally constrained as you and Copper and just say to hell with imagination, let's just shoot down a few 747s. Done any flying lately?

Now was that so hard? Take your time.

Originally Posted by playwrite

What is it with you guys? Do you have some kind of space alien installed filter on your hearing?

Yeah, it's almost like we're from completely different generations, and we have completely different roles to play in society!

No one is refuting the right. What we are saying is the guy who made this film for the purpose of inciting hate is an a-hole. Anyone who sanctimoniously reminds us of his right but doesn't in the same sentence identify him as an a-hole for abusing that right is also being an a-hole.

There are definitely people who have called for the producer's arrest. No one here has directly said it, but there is a whole lot of hemming and hawing on the nature and potential limits of free speech rights.

Now, about the movie producer being an asshole. Have you watched the movie to form this opinion? Are you basing it on how people have reacted? People can react poorly for no good reason at all, and I haven't spent enough time familiarizing myself with the video in question to have any sort of opinion on what it tells me about the character of the man who made it.

From there, if you want to pontificate on the many Muslims being, in your opinion, too sensitive about their religion, be my guest.

Sure, but this is hardly limited to one type of religious fundamentalist.

Then:

Maybe then you could also state the obvious that many radical Muslims will take every advantage to not only hurt Americans but they're hoping to do it in a way that drives even a greater wedge between the Islamic world and everyone else. Perhaps with a tad of insight you could further point out that the radicals are not only very grateful when an a-hole gives them that opportunity but their cover is reinforced by the Ugly American chorus that talks only about the a-hole's right to his bigotry and that Muslims just need to get over it (implying, of course, that we will bluster and blunder again into invading another one of their countries and kill a lot more of them than they will kill of us (or more precisely, the kids from other American families than your own)).

Then you could really make things clear by stating the also obvious that today's Republicans will also take advantage of this and lie (e.g. somebody apologized to the attackers) about everything all the time over and over again for their benefit. That they do so regardless of the consequences it may have for our people (typically from other American families) that actually afford them their freedom of speech to lie about everything all the time over and over again.

What? My alien-hearing-filter honestly can't make sense of what you're trying to say I should believe. There's some implication that if I was more sensitive about religious fundamentalists, we wouldn't have to send troops on the next crusade. Then there's something about how Republicans are abusing freedom of speech as well.

More hemming and hawing about why you don't like how other people use their words.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Holy crap ... what???
This has nothing to do with the standards that *I* believe in.
I'm talking about a person's own moral standards.

Do you have such yourself? do you ever deviate from them?

Originally Posted by JDFP

If you want to have the opinion that someone who may be culturally born into a Catholic background is still a Catholic even though they don't follow the teachings of the Church - that's up to you. I don't consider them to be. You don't have to be formally excommunicated (in fact, that's extremely rare for that to take place) in order to no longer be part of the Church.

I would argue that if someone doesn't follow the teachings of the Church - intentionally and repeatedly as opposed to making a mistake and realizing it was a mistake as the Church teaches and asking for repentance for it - than no, they are not Catholic. I'd argue the same for any religious background.

Possibly so, but I myself don't think I have the right to tell them what religion they are, or are not.

We're all hypocrites of some extent or another - including me and including you. The difference is in realizing something is wrong and asking for forgiveness of doing it - v. not caring that it's wrong and doing it anyway without any care in the world if it is against dogmatic/doctrinal teachings.

Except that "what's wrong" may have little to do with a church's teachings. In the case of Catholicism, in my opinion, there is a lot of difference.

Where the hell are you getting this nonsense from? First - you're hardly one to be casting stones in attempting to judge me or Rani or anyone else through a lens of "perfectionism". You're the one who claims can read the future through astrological signs and activity and can predict things. That's a sheer level of arrogance I certainly can't relate to at all.

It is also true that my predictions have very-often been verified as true, right here. But predictions have nothing to do with morality. Is a weatherman arrogant because he claims he can make predictions? What is their percentage of being correct?

Second, where have I ever argued that I'm better than you or anyone else? I'm certainly no better than anyone else here. I have my own faults and vices and issues I deal with every day. I'm far from perfect. And I certainly don't look down on you or anyone else even when we disagree.

j.p.

I don't know, then, how you can decide if someone is or is not a good Catholic, based on whether in your opinion they follow Catholic teachings.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Wow is your reading comprehension sub-par. I've never said, nor implied, that you are fine with wog-murder because you hate them. The fact that you simply consider the fuzzy-wuzzies sub-human is more than sufficient explanation. Emotional involvement might even be a hindrance to doing the job efficiently.

The point remains the same - what is behind the position is isolationism. It flows from being a Libertarian (see Ron P.) and certainly from being an Anarchist. Why run from it? If that's what you believe - then it is what it is.

I just wanted to point out to some of those getting caught up in the sanctimonious frame that this is only about the freedom of speech are actually on the slippery slope towards Justin's Clubhouse in magic pony land.

Others, of course, will slide the other way into bluster and blunder kill the wogs.

If I had to choose between the two, I would go with yours and await the inevitable consequences with foreboding.

However, there are actually sane alternatives to both - I'll go that way instead.

Originally Posted by playwrite

The point remains the same - what is behind the position is isolationism. It flows from being a Libertarian (see Ron P.) and certainly from being an Anarchist. Why run from it? If that's what you believe - then it is what it is.

Mischaracterizing others' opinions: Check

I just wanted to point out to some of those getting caught up in the sanctimonious frame that this is only about the freedom of speech are actually on the slippery slope towards Justin's Clubhouse in magic pony land.

Dismissing with magic pony land insults: Check

Advancement of human knowledge: Not found

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

Yeah, it's almost like we're from completely different generations, and we have completely different roles to play in society!



There are definitely people who have called for the producer's arrest. No one here has directly said it, but there is a whole lot of hemming and hawing on the nature and potential limits of free speech rights.

Now, about the movie producer being an asshole. Have you watched the movie to form this opinion? Are you basing it on how people have reacted? People can react poorly for no good reason at all, and I haven't spent enough time familiarizing myself with the video in question to have any sort of opinion on what it tells me about the character of the man who made it.



Sure, but this is hardly limited to one type of religious fundamentalist.

Then:




What? My alien-hearing-filter honestly can't make sense of what you're trying to say I should believe. There's some implication that if I was more sensitive about religious fundamentalists, we wouldn't have to send troops on the next crusade. Then there's something about how Republicans are abusing freedom of speech as well.

More hemming and hawing about why you don't like how other people use their words.

Yea, I kind of thought that might be too many layers for you.

The problem is the world is even more complex than that. I realize it is scary, but generally, being a bit more attuned to reality does pay off.

Take your time. Work on it.

If you want to watch the movie, it's own youtube.

Originally Posted by playwrite

IIn case you don't read the news or are somewhat forgetful, Libya had a civil war this year. The bad guys lost but that doesn't mean they’ve all gone to heavan or have become good guys. They're still around and they very much want to get back into control or at the very least get back at those, including Americans, which they believe facilitated their demise.

Given as how people flying the American flag decided to kill some Libyans and not others during Libya's violent internal mix-up, the 'belief' of one party kind of rises to the level of 'fact' more than 'opinion'.

An embassy, particularly in a hostile area, tends to be the hub of not only our diplomatic activities but many other activities such as fostering trade and cultural exchange to help promote partnerships and peace. Now does that need some explanation? If so, check with that 5th grader you have on call.

Nominally, of course. Then again, an embassy is also the place where the next part is concentrated:

Also, often an embassy is where a lot of folks in our Intelligence community might just happen to get together.

So it's a -- whaddayacallit -- 'legitimate target'. Or at least reasonably sure to be chock-full of legitimate targets.

None of this is breaking any ground here.

Were you aware that one of the four Americans killed was a former Navy Seal who was in the country tracking down major weaponry including possible shoulder-launched SAMs?

Now grab that 5th grader and see if he can make up for your lack of imagination on what might kind of mischief some conspiring bad guys who hate us might be able to do with some shoulder launched SAMs...

Ahhhh. and now it come clear.

You imagine certain things, and on the strength of your imagining, expect certain concrete actions to be justified. That's a classic Prophet-gen thing, and really doesn't hold all that much water among the more reality-centered generations (which is to say, all of them). The communication breakdown here is pretty clearly on your end. Not to worry, though, that "you" is plural and encompasses a lot more than just this one subject, so you don't have to take it as a personal failing.

Originally Posted by The Rani

And, in my view, hypocrisy indicates a lack of a true "belief."

So you think it's impossible for:

1) A person to believe in monogamy, yet be tempted to stray?
2) A person to believe that theft is wrong, yet find himself/herself in circumstances where money is desperately needed and an easy and safe opportunity presents to shoplift or embezzle and succumb to the temptation?
3) A person to recognize that he/she has a drinking problem, understand that abstinence is necessary, and still fall off the wagon occasionally?

We are complex creatures. No one is a monolith. Internal conflict is very common.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Given as how people flying the American flag decided to kill some Libyans and not others during Libya's violent internal mix-up, the 'belief' of one party kind of rises to the level of 'fact' more than 'opinion'.

Nominally, of course. Then again, an embassy is also the place where the next part is concentrated:

So it's a -- whaddayacallit -- 'legitimate target'. Or at least reasonably sure to be chock-full of legitimate targets.

None of this is breaking any ground here.

Ahhhh. and now it come clear.

You imagine certain things, and on the strength of your imagining, expect certain concrete actions to be justified. That's a classic Prophet-gen thing, and really doesn't hold all that much water among the more reality-centered generations (which is to say, all of them). The communication breakdown here is pretty clearly on your end. Not to worry, though, that "you" is plural and encompasses a lot more than just this one subject, so you don't have to take it as a personal failing.

Um, imagination and intuition are related. They are useful skills for problem solving even amongst reality-based generations.