Shooting at Muhammad cartoon conference in Dallas

[Gauthier]

The only thing stupid is how you're going on the Victim Blaming wagon, as if SIOA were traumatized by the shooting and gained no advantage or benefit from it whatsoever.

...Wait a minute, the shooters were the victims because SIOA said bad things about their religion?
...
I'm just going to assume that was a typo. Because otherwise I'm not even sure where to begin with that bullshit.

Oh, and McVeigh claimed Waco and Ruby Ridge was part of the reason he bombed the building. But hey, pointing out the obvious means you approve of what happened apparently.

Waco, Ruby Ridge, and the dude's rather rampant anti-government feelings yes.

Now, make the logical connection here to your supposed 'pointing out of the obvious'. WAS the federal governments actions at Waco and Ruby Ridge responsible for McVeigh's bombing? Was the IRSs continued existence and enforcement of law responsible?
Or is your logic fucking bonkers?
(hint: The latter is correct)

I'm amused how you're of the mind that Freedom of Speech means Freedom From Responsibility and how you're doing gymnastics trying to argue that I feel Oklahoma and this was totally and entirely justified. Because you're full of it. There's no small irony in people whining "FREEDUM OF SPECH" shouting down anyone that tries to bring up that the targets are not saints and that there's a very good likelihood that they may have jizzed in their pants at the attack if not outright baiting for one at the beginning. And it's also pathetic that anyone who states the obvious suddenly becomes the Evil One who cheered on the attack and said that the targets deserved it, despite No Fucking Thing ever being stated. If I feel that they deserved it, I'd fucking say they deserved it. What I'm saying is they were probably counting on something like that to happen and it's a shame that some unhinged fanatics gave them their early Christmas present probably just as planned.

Man attacked while leaving Richardson mosque

I wouldn't be surprised if the Mosque Attack was a retalitation for the shooting.

[The Ostrich Empire]

*sigh*.... Conservative Muslims need to learn that they can't get their way with violence. Cause this is getting freaking ridiculous.

It's the religion itself. See the two videos I linked.

[Ethel mermania]

*sigh*.... Conservative Muslims need to learn that they can't get their way with violence. Cause this is getting freaking ridiculous.

These aren't conservatives, conservatives what to keep the status quo. These people are radicals, trying to completely reform the world. The conservatives just want to pray in peace and put their kids through college.

[Gauthier]

*sigh*.... Conservative Muslims need to learn that they can't get their way with violence. Cause this is getting freaking ridiculous.

These aren't conservatives, conservatives what to keep the status quo. These people are radicals, trying to completely reform the world. The conservatives just want to pray in peace and put their kids through college.

And the people behind the contest are trying to tell everyone they're both the same.

[The Ostrich Empire]

These aren't conservatives, conservatives what to keep the status quo. These people are radicals, trying to completely reform the world. The conservatives just want to pray in peace and put their kids through college.

And the people behind the contest are trying to tell everyone they're both the same.

No, but a very huge majority of Muslims are extremist, thus "the same".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7TAAw3oQvg

Even then, what the fuck does "they're all the same" have to do with people shooting at people over cartoons? Stop derailing.

[Occupied Deutschland]

...Wait a minute, the shooters were the victims because SIOA said bad things about their religion?
...
I'm just going to assume that was a typo. Because otherwise I'm not even sure where to begin with that bullshit.

Waco, Ruby Ridge, and the dude's rather rampant anti-government feelings yes.

Now, make the logical connection here to your supposed 'pointing out of the obvious'. WAS the federal governments actions at Waco and Ruby Ridge responsible for McVeigh's bombing? Was the IRSs continued existence and enforcement of law responsible?
Or is your logic fucking bonkers?
(hint: The latter is correct)

I'm how you're of the mind that Freedom of Speech means Freedom From Responsibility and how you're doing gymnastics trying to argue that I feel Oklahoma and this was totally and entirely justified.

Not what the comparison was saying. Justification didn't enter into it at all, merely 'responsibility'.
By the logic you're using, the federal government is responsible for McVeigh's bombing because their actions at Waco and Ruby Ridge, and their continued enforcement of laws and taxation, inspired the attack.
Much like how Gellar and the SIAO were 'responsible' for the shooting because of their actions mocking Islam.

The logic is the same and its stupid.

Because you're full of it. There's no small irony in people whining "FREEDUM OF SPECH" shouting down anyone that tries to bring up that the targets are not saints and that there's a very good likelihood that they may have jizzed in their pants at the attack if not outright baiting for one at the beginning.

I'm not shouting you down, I'm pointing out your claim is fucking stupid and results in blame being apportioned based on attackers motivations WHICH IS STUPID (as demonstrated through the analogy of the Oklahoma City Bombing).

Whether Gellar and her organization are dickheads is irrelevant. Much as the federal government being dickish is irrelevant in the case of the OKC bombing.

And it's also pathetic that anyone who states the obvious suddenly becomes the Evil One who cheered on the attack and said that the targets deserved it, despite No Fucking Thing ever being stated.

Never claimed you did. Merely used your own words apportioning responsibility.

If I feel that they deserved it, I'd fucking say they deserved it. What I'm saying is they were probably counting on something like that to happen and it's a shame that some unhinged fanatics gave them their early Christmas present probably just as planned.

Which is irrelevant to the discussion.

People being dicks or saying dickish things does not make them 'responsible' for crimes committed against them. Just as true for Gellar and co. as it is for neo-nazis and federal government workers (and their families).

The federal government isn't responsible for McVeigh. The Dark Knight and Christopher Nolan aren't responsible for the Aurora shooting. Video games aren't responsible for Sandy Hook. Saying offensive things isn't responsible for attempted murder.

[Gauthier]

I'm how you're of the mind that Freedom of Speech means Freedom From Responsibility and how you're doing gymnastics trying to argue that I feel Oklahoma and this was totally and entirely justified.

Not what the comparison was saying. Justification didn't enter into it at all, merely 'responsibility'.
By the logic you're using, the federal government is responsible for McVeigh's bombing because their actions at Waco and Ruby Ridge, and their continued enforcement of laws and taxation, inspired the attack.
Much like how Gellar and the SIAO were 'responsible' for the shooting because of their actions mocking Islam.

The logic is the same and its stupid.

Because you're full of it. There's no small irony in people whining "FREEDUM OF SPECH" shouting down anyone that tries to bring up that the targets are not saints and that there's a very good likelihood that they may have jizzed in their pants at the attack if not outright baiting for one at the beginning.

I'm not shouting you down, I'm pointing out your claim is fucking stupid and results in blame being apportioned based on attackers motivations WHICH IS STUPID (as demonstrated through the analogy of the Oklahoma City Bombing).

Whether Gellar and her organization are dickheads is irrelevant. Much as the federal government being dickish is irrelevant in the case of the OKC bombing.

And it's also pathetic that anyone who states the obvious suddenly becomes the Evil One who cheered on the attack and said that the targets deserved it, despite No Fucking Thing ever being stated.

Never claimed you did. Merely used your own words apportioning responsibility.

If I feel that they deserved it, I'd fucking say they deserved it. What I'm saying is they were probably counting on something like that to happen and it's a shame that some unhinged fanatics gave them their early Christmas present probably just as planned.

Which is irrelevant to the discussion.

People being dicks or saying dickish things does not make them 'responsible' for crimes committed against them. Just as true for Gellar and co. as it is for neo-nazis and federal government workers (and their families).

The federal government isn't responsible for McVeigh. The Dark Knight and Christopher Nolan aren't responsible for the Aurora shooting. Video games aren't responsible for Sandy Hook. Saying offensive things isn't responsible for attempted murder.

And now you're saying Freedom of Speech is a license to be a sociopath and that a sense of ethical responsibility is optional.

[The German Democratic Reich]

I'm how you're of the mind that Freedom of Speech means Freedom From Responsibility and how you're doing gymnastics trying to argue that I feel Oklahoma and this was totally and entirely justified.

Not what the comparison was saying. Justification didn't enter into it at all, merely 'responsibility'.
By the logic you're using, the federal government is responsible for McVeigh's bombing because their actions at Waco and Ruby Ridge, and their continued enforcement of laws and taxation, inspired the attack.
Much like how Gellar and the SIAO were 'responsible' for the shooting because of their actions mocking Islam.

The logic is the same and its stupid.

Because you're full of it. There's no small irony in people whining "FREEDUM OF SPECH" shouting down anyone that tries to bring up that the targets are not saints and that there's a very good likelihood that they may have jizzed in their pants at the attack if not outright baiting for one at the beginning.

I'm not shouting you down, I'm pointing out your claim is fucking stupid and results in blame being apportioned based on attackers motivations WHICH IS STUPID (as demonstrated through the analogy of the Oklahoma City Bombing).

Whether Gellar and her organization are dickheads is irrelevant. Much as the federal government being dickish is irrelevant in the case of the OKC bombing.

And it's also pathetic that anyone who states the obvious suddenly becomes the Evil One who cheered on the attack and said that the targets deserved it, despite No Fucking Thing ever being stated.

Never claimed you did. Merely used your own words apportioning responsibility.

If I feel that they deserved it, I'd fucking say they deserved it. What I'm saying is they were probably counting on something like that to happen and it's a shame that some unhinged fanatics gave them their early Christmas present probably just as planned.

Which is irrelevant to the discussion.

People being dicks or saying dickish things does not make them 'responsible' for crimes committed against them. Just as true for Gellar and co. as it is for neo-nazis and federal government workers (and their families).

The federal government isn't responsible for McVeigh. The Dark Knight and Christopher Nolan aren't responsible for the Aurora shooting. Video games aren't responsible for Sandy Hook. Saying offensive things isn't responsible for attempted murder.

This man is our hero, he fights for freedom

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Of course not. Moral responsibility is not always legal responsibility.

The arguement I am seeing is that gellers contest was incitement. incitement is not considered free sheep and is illegal

It obviously didn't meet the legal definition. However, while I can't speak for Gauthier, I'm not speaking from a legal standpoint, but rather from a mixture of pragmatic and ethical points of view.

Edit: Wait, free sheep? ARE YOU TRYING TO IMPLY THAT WE'RE SHEEPLE?!

[Ethel mermania]

These aren't conservatives, conservatives what to keep the status quo. These people are radicals, trying to completely reform the world. The conservatives just want to pray in peace and put their kids through college.

And the people behind the contest are trying to tell everyone they're both the same.

I have heard geller speak and that's not what she said, she thought the issue was vastly misunderstood, and radical Islam is a major threat, but she drew a difference, between groups, now this was a few years ago.

[Occupied Deutschland]

Not what the comparison was saying. Justification didn't enter into it at all, merely 'responsibility'.
By the logic you're using, the federal government is responsible for McVeigh's bombing because their actions at Waco and Ruby Ridge, and their continued enforcement of laws and taxation, inspired the attack.
Much like how Gellar and the SIAO were 'responsible' for the shooting because of their actions mocking Islam.

The logic is the same and its stupid.

I'm not shouting you down, I'm pointing out your claim is fucking stupid and results in blame being apportioned based on attackers motivations WHICH IS STUPID (as demonstrated through the analogy of the Oklahoma City Bombing).

Whether Gellar and her organization are dickheads is irrelevant. Much as the federal government being dickish is irrelevant in the case of the OKC bombing.

Never claimed you did. Merely used your own words apportioning responsibility.

Which is irrelevant to the discussion.

People being dicks or saying dickish things does not make them 'responsible' for crimes committed against them. Just as true for Gellar and co. as it is for neo-nazis and federal government workers (and their families).

The federal government isn't responsible for McVeigh. The Dark Knight and Christopher Nolan aren't responsible for the Aurora shooting. Video games aren't responsible for Sandy Hook. Saying offensive things isn't responsible for attempted murder.

And now you're saying Freedom of Speech is a license to be a sociopath and that a sense of ethical responsibility is optional.

AND NOW YOU'RE SAYING YOU LIKE HITLER!
I can make stupid statements based off nothing you've written, too!

I can't seem to hear you over the sound of incitement and fighting words distinctions, Gauth. Those things you don't admit to existing. Perhaps you'd like to pretend I hold another position to make your own inadequate and unconsidered bullshit opinion sound better?

May I recommend saying I punch babies?

[Jamzmania]

*sigh*.... Conservative Muslims need to learn that they can't get their way with violence. Cause this is getting freaking ridiculous.

These aren't conservatives, conservatives what to keep the status quo. These people are radicals, trying to completely reform the world. The conservatives just want to pray in peace and put their kids through college.

They're more reactionaries, trying to put things back the way they were.

[Gauthier]

The arguement I am seeing is that gellers contest was incitement. incitement is not considered free sheep and is illegal

It obviously didn't meet the legal definition. However, while I can't speak for Gauthier, I'm not speaking from a legal standpoint, but rather from a mixture of pragmatic and ethical points of view.

Edit: Wait, free sheep? ARE YOU TRYING TO IMPLY THAT WE'RE SHEEPLE?!

They obviously won't be arrested because it's not incitement in the legal term. However they do have some ethical and moral responsibility for purposefully provoking the type of people wanting to be provoked. The whole subtext is that Free Speech is about embracing sociopathy.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Not what the comparison was saying. Justification didn't enter into it at all, merely 'responsibility'.
By the logic you're using, the federal government is responsible for McVeigh's bombing because their actions at Waco and Ruby Ridge, and their continued enforcement of laws and taxation, inspired the attack.
Much like how Gellar and the SIAO were 'responsible' for the shooting because of their actions mocking Islam.

The logic is the same and its stupid.

I'm not shouting you down, I'm pointing out your claim is fucking stupid and results in blame being apportioned based on attackers motivations WHICH IS STUPID (as demonstrated through the analogy of the Oklahoma City Bombing).

Whether Gellar and her organization are dickheads is irrelevant. Much as the federal government being dickish is irrelevant in the case of the OKC bombing.

Never claimed you did. Merely used your own words apportioning responsibility.

Which is irrelevant to the discussion.

People being dicks or saying dickish things does not make them 'responsible' for crimes committed against them. Just as true for Gellar and co. as it is for neo-nazis and federal government workers (and their families).

The federal government isn't responsible for McVeigh. The Dark Knight and Christopher Nolan aren't responsible for the Aurora shooting. Video games aren't responsible for Sandy Hook. Saying offensive things isn't responsible for attempted murder.

And now you're saying Freedom of Speech is a license to be a sociopath and that a sense of ethical responsibility is optional.

Legally yes, intrinsically no.

[Ethel mermania]

The arguement I am seeing is that gellers contest was incitement. incitement is not considered free sheep and is illegal

It obviously didn't meet the legal definition. However, while I can't speak for Gauthier, I'm not speaking from a legal standpoint, but rather from a mixture of pragmatic and ethical points of view.

Edit: Wait, free sheep? ARE YOU TRYING TO IMPLY THAT WE'RE SHEEPLE?!

It seems I was making a comparison between free sheep and incitement. I hope Blatt doesn't find out.

(Fucking autocorrect ).

[Yumyumsuppertime]

I'm how you're of the mind that Freedom of Speech means Freedom From Responsibility and how you're doing gymnastics trying to argue that I feel Oklahoma and this was totally and entirely justified.

Not what the comparison was saying. Justification didn't enter into it at all, merely 'responsibility'.
By the logic you're using, the federal government is responsible for McVeigh's bombing because their actions at Waco and Ruby Ridge, and their continued enforcement of laws and taxation, inspired the attack.
Much like how Gellar and the SIAO were 'responsible' for the shooting because of their actions mocking Islam.

The logic is the same and its stupid.

Because you're full of it. There's no small irony in people whining "FREEDUM OF SPECH" shouting down anyone that tries to bring up that the targets are not saints and that there's a very good likelihood that they may have jizzed in their pants at the attack if not outright baiting for one at the beginning.

I'm not shouting you down, I'm pointing out your claim is fucking stupid and results in blame being apportioned based on attackers motivations WHICH IS STUPID (as demonstrated through the analogy of the Oklahoma City Bombing).

Whether Gellar and her organization are dickheads is irrelevant. Much as the federal government being dickish is irrelevant in the case of the OKC bombing.

And it's also pathetic that anyone who states the obvious suddenly becomes the Evil One who cheered on the attack and said that the targets deserved it, despite No Fucking Thing ever being stated.

Never claimed you did. Merely used your own words apportioning responsibility.

If I feel that they deserved it, I'd fucking say they deserved it. What I'm saying is they were probably counting on something like that to happen and it's a shame that some unhinged fanatics gave them their early Christmas present probably just as planned.

Which is irrelevant to the discussion.

People being dicks or saying dickish things does not make them 'responsible' for crimes committed against them. Just as true for Gellar and co. as it is for neo-nazis and federal government workers (and their families).

The federal government isn't responsible for McVeigh. The Dark Knight and Christopher Nolan aren't responsible for the Aurora shooting. Video games aren't responsible for Sandy Hook. Saying offensive things isn't responsible for attempted murder.

The OKC bombing was not a foreseeable outcome of the government going about its normal business.

The Aurora shooting was not a predictable outcome of filming and releasing The Dark Knight.

In the wake of Charlie Hebdo, the Garland shooting was a distinct possibility, and unless Geller is even more of an idiot than I thought that she was, then she knew it.

[Big Jim P]

Getting butthurt at Americans exercising their rights is no reason to go on a shooting spree.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Getting butthurt at Americans exercising their rights is no reason to go on a shooting spree.

Nobody's saying that it's justified, though slightly more complex perspectives are being mistaken for that.

[Gauthier]

Getting butthurt at Americans exercising their rights is no reason to go on a shooting spree.

Nobody's saying that it's justified, though slightly more complex perspectives are being mistaken for that.

"I saw this coming" = "I'm glad it happened" apparently.

[Occupied Deutschland]

...they do have some ethical and moral responsibility for purposefully provoking the type of people wanting to be provoked...

168 people killed, including 19 children.
The US government, of course, bearing some of the ethical and moral responsibility for provoking the kinds of people who do these things, even if legally they can't be held responsible due to sophistry and semantics.

Gauthier logic, everyone!

[Jamzmania]

Not what the comparison was saying. Justification didn't enter into it at all, merely 'responsibility'.
By the logic you're using, the federal government is responsible for McVeigh's bombing because their actions at Waco and Ruby Ridge, and their continued enforcement of laws and taxation, inspired the attack.
Much like how Gellar and the SIAO were 'responsible' for the shooting because of their actions mocking Islam.

The logic is the same and its stupid.

I'm not shouting you down, I'm pointing out your claim is fucking stupid and results in blame being apportioned based on attackers motivations WHICH IS STUPID (as demonstrated through the analogy of the Oklahoma City Bombing).

Whether Gellar and her organization are dickheads is irrelevant. Much as the federal government being dickish is irrelevant in the case of the OKC bombing.

Never claimed you did. Merely used your own words apportioning responsibility.

Which is irrelevant to the discussion.

People being dicks or saying dickish things does not make them 'responsible' for crimes committed against them. Just as true for Gellar and co. as it is for neo-nazis and federal government workers (and their families).

The federal government isn't responsible for McVeigh. The Dark Knight and Christopher Nolan aren't responsible for the Aurora shooting. Video games aren't responsible for Sandy Hook. Saying offensive things isn't responsible for attempted murder.

The OKC bombing was not a foreseeable outcome of the government going about its normal business.

The Aurora shooting was not a predictable outcome of filming and releasing The Dark Knight.

In the wake of Charlie Hebdo, the Garland shooting was a distinct possibility, and unless Geller is even more of an idiot than I thought that she was, then she knew it.

She most likely did know that this was a possibility, which is why there was plenty of security on hand.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Nobody's saying that it's justified, though slightly more complex perspectives are being mistaken for that.

"I saw this coming" = "I'm glad it happened" apparently.

Or "She had to have seen this as a possible, perhaps even probable outcome" = "They deserved it".

[Yumyumsuppertime]

The OKC bombing was not a foreseeable outcome of the government going about its normal business.

The Aurora shooting was not a predictable outcome of filming and releasing The Dark Knight.

In the wake of Charlie Hebdo, the Garland shooting was a distinct possibility, and unless Geller is even more of an idiot than I thought that she was, then she knew it.

She most likely did know that this was a possibility, which is why there was plenty of security on hand.

I agree.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Not what the comparison was saying. Justification didn't enter into it at all, merely 'responsibility'.
By the logic you're using, the federal government is responsible for McVeigh's bombing because their actions at Waco and Ruby Ridge, and their continued enforcement of laws and taxation, inspired the attack.
Much like how Gellar and the SIAO were 'responsible' for the shooting because of their actions mocking Islam.

The logic is the same and its stupid.

I'm not shouting you down, I'm pointing out your claim is fucking stupid and results in blame being apportioned based on attackers motivations WHICH IS STUPID (as demonstrated through the analogy of the Oklahoma City Bombing).

Whether Gellar and her organization are dickheads is irrelevant. Much as the federal government being dickish is irrelevant in the case of the OKC bombing.

Never claimed you did. Merely used your own words apportioning responsibility.

Which is irrelevant to the discussion.

People being dicks or saying dickish things does not make them 'responsible' for crimes committed against them. Just as true for Gellar and co. as it is for neo-nazis and federal government workers (and their families).

The federal government isn't responsible for McVeigh. The Dark Knight and Christopher Nolan aren't responsible for the Aurora shooting. Video games aren't responsible for Sandy Hook. Saying offensive things isn't responsible for attempted murder.

The OKC bombing was not a foreseeable outcome of the government going about its normal business.

The Aurora shooting was not a predictable outcome of filming and releasing The Dark Knight.

In the wake of Charlie Hebdo, the Garland shooting was a distinct possibility, and unless Geller is even more of an idiot than I thought that she was, then she knew it.

There's a difference between knowing a possible outcome and being responsible for the outcome. We're not talking about inciting panic here were talking about offending someone. Willfully or otherwise, you don't have a right to not be offended, and especially don't have a right to then commit violence as a result of that offence. While we can sit here and detest these people for being bigoted and inflammatory, we can't hold them responsible for violence enacted against them. Can't blame the victim as it were.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

The OKC bombing was not a foreseeable outcome of the government going about its normal business.

The Aurora shooting was not a predictable outcome of filming and releasing The Dark Knight.

In the wake of Charlie Hebdo, the Garland shooting was a distinct possibility, and unless Geller is even more of an idiot than I thought that she was, then she knew it.

There's a difference between knowing a possible outcome and being responsible for the outcome. We're not talking about inciting panic here were talking about offending someone. Willfully or otherwise, you don't have a right to not be offended, and especially don't have a right to then commit violence as a result of that offence. While we can sit here and detest these people for being bigoted and inflammatory, we can't hold them responsible for violence enacted against them. Can't blame the victim as it were.

Until you show me where I argued that the gunmen had a right to do what they did, or that people have a right to not be offended, I'm not sure what I"m supposed to be responding to, here.