Shooting at Muhammad cartoon conference in Dallas

[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.

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.

So the trick for right-wing militia fanatics is to just keep on blowing up federal buildings until it becomes an expected outcome?
...
I'm sorry, I happen to think we should be discouraging violence in society, not fanning the flames, tossing in gunpowder, and offering a scaled rewards system based on effectiveness and frequency.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

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.

Your post implies that the Group involved is at least partly to blame over what happened. This is not the case, and I'm explaining why.

[Gauthier]

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.

Pointing out that Geller may have known it was possible or maybe even tried to goad for it is the same as saying the gunmen had a right to shoot, don't you know?

[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.

So the trick for right-wing militia fanatics is to just keep on blowing up federal buildings until it becomes an expected outcome?
...
I'm sorry, I happen to think we should be discouraging violence in society, not fanning the flames, tossing in gunpowder, and offering a scaled rewards system based on effectiveness and frequency.

Interesting conclusion that you reached from me observing that this was a likely outcome to "Then everyone should do it". I've offered no suggestions regarding how to approach this in the future, but please feel free to assume. It saves me the trouble of responding to actual questions regarding what I believe.

[Occupied Deutschland]

So the trick for right-wing militia fanatics is to just keep on blowing up federal buildings until it becomes an expected outcome?
...
I'm sorry, I happen to think we should be discouraging violence in society, not fanning the flames, tossing in gunpowder, and offering a scaled rewards system based on effectiveness and frequency.

Interesting conclusion that you reached from me observing that this was a likely outcome to "Then everyone should do it". I've offered no suggestions regarding how to approach this in the future, but please feel free to assume. It saves me the trouble of responding to actual questions regarding what I believe.

Expectation was irrelevant to the analogy brought up.
Just as it's irrelevant to Gellar's conference.
I was, and remain, confused as to why you thought bringing it up would be relevant as the only conceivable reason based on the discussion was somehow condemning Gellar because of the expectation.

Pointing out that Geller may have known it was possible or maybe even tried to goad for it is the same as saying the gunmen had a right to shoot, don't you know?

Except nobody's saying that, they're criticizing shitty logic that somehow assumes knowing something is possible is somehow reason to temper an exercise of free speech.
Which it isn't.

Criminals, maniacs and extremists shouldn't control the discussion based on appeals to the public safety that might be threatened if their precious ideals are insulted in some way and they go and shoot, bomb or otherwise attack people.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

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.

Your post implies that the Group involved is at least partly to blame over what happened. This is not the case, and I'm explaining why.

Well, Geller shares some responsibility, as she likely knew that this would happen. As I've repeatedly stated, it was a predictable outcome, if not at this event, then at some similar event in the future. However, what's the problem with that? This is something that she should own, bravely putting on an event despite knowing the risk of an attack by extremists. If this event was really that important, if the message was that necessary, then the responsibility is something to embrace, not run from. Instead of phrasing it as "Geller is responsible for putting a number of lives at risk so that they could prove that they have a right to draw pictures that offend most members of one of the world's major religions", phrase it is "Geller is responsible for putting on a show to give artists the chance to exercise their god-given rights despite the distinct possibility of radical Islamist attacks" I mean, I tend to see the first one before the second one, but it's all a matter of perspective.

Seriously: If this show was really such a great thumb in the eye to those who would censor speech, then why wouldn't she accept responsibility when the censors attack? It shows that the message got through, if nothing else.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Interesting conclusion that you reached from me observing that this was a likely outcome to "Then everyone should do it". I've offered no suggestions regarding how to approach this in the future, but please feel free to assume. It saves me the trouble of responding to actual questions regarding what I believe.

Expectation was irrelevant to the analogy brought up.
Just as it's irrelevant to Gellar's conference.
I was, and remain, confused as to why you thought bringing it up would be relevant as the only conceivable reason based on the discussion was somehow condemning Gellar because of the expectation.

Are you saying that despite Charlie Hebdo, she wouldn't have seen this as a likely outcome?

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Your post implies that the Group involved is at least partly to blame over what happened. This is not the case, and I'm explaining why.

Well, Geller shares some responsibility, as she likely knew that this would happen. As I've repeatedly stated, it was a predictable outcome, if not at this event, then at some similar event in the future. However, what's the problem with that? This is something that she should own, bravely putting on an event despite knowing the risk of an attack by extremists. If this event was really that important, if the message was that necessary, then the responsibility is something to embrace, not run from. Instead of phrasing it as "Geller is responsible for putting a number of lives at risk so that they could prove that they have a right to draw pictures that offend most members of one of the world's major religions", phrase it is "Geller is responsible for putting on a show to give artists the chance to exercise their god-given rights despite the distinct possibility of radical Islamist attacks" I mean, I tend to see the first one before the second one, but it's all a matter of perspective.

Seriously: If this show was really such a great thumb in the eye to those who would censor speech, then why wouldn't she accept responsibility when the censors attack? It shows that the message got through, if nothing else.

While the Group is responsible for the event, they are not responsible for the attack. They would gladly take responsibility for hosting the event, you saying they share responsibility for the attack denotes that they were somehow complicit, that they were, dare I say, "Asking for it"

[The Black Forrest]

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.

Socialpath? Isn't that the two who were planning to kill people?

Freedom of speech and expression includes the ability to be offended.

I am more concerned about people trying to define what is proper speech and expression.

The plans of the people behind this show is irrelevant. I might have checked it out if I was in Texas simply because I believe in looking at everything people say is offensive.

This event was not a forced showing. You could go to it if you wanted or if you thought it was stupid; you don't.

The Muslims find it offensive. That's fine. They have the right to protest. They have the right to try an educate people. Where they go wrong is expecting everybody else to follow/respect their religion. The same can be said for every religion. The same can be said for Atheists, etc. etc.

If you don't like it. Don't go to it.

How is your world hurt? If people went nuts and banned such events, they are not going to find respect. People that don't like them, think they are monsters are only going to continue if not increase.

There are things I find offensive. There are people I find offensive.

I don't seek to censor, ban, assault or murder.

I turn the page, ignore or try to understand why they are nuts.

People need to accept asshatery as long as it doesn't seek to injury you or exclude you.

[Occupied Deutschland]

Your post implies that the Group involved is at least partly to blame over what happened. This is not the case, and I'm explaining why.

Well, Geller shares some responsibility, as she likely knew that this would happen...

Simple statistics says that isn't correct, though. Gellar has been, from what I know, a rather loud voice of anti-Islam for more than a decade (the NY ads being the first I remember hearing of her). Messages like this have been put out, she's undoubtedly attended conferences and conventions with similar themes in the past, and those haven't seen any such attack (to my knowledge).

I'd say it's not too much to assume that, with the history of such attacks as this being exceptionally rare in the US (I mean, the Boston bombing is the last item that comes to mind US-terror wise for me, and the motivations for that are a bit wider than just 'offense to Islam' and seems to be more centered around US actions in the middle east), Gellar would have been perfectly justified in assuming that pattern would remain. Because Muslims in the US aren't violent to any degree worth mentioning. There was little reason to assume that pattern would change with this latest event when previous similar activities and events did nothing but inspire peaceful counter-protest and comment.

I mean, Gellar may have assumed something like this would eventually happen because she's a bigot. In which case this becomes a somewhat ironic argument where we argue she should've expected something like this because Muslims are going to become violent over these things even as she expected something like this to happen because Muslims are inevitably going to respond violently to offenses like this. Which is...rather disturbingly justifying her argument by saying she should've expected such an attack.

I'd personally much rather go on the assumption that Gellar's being a bigot is irrelevant and such a viewpoint is fundamentally incorrect in its assumptions about Muslims, and rather go with this being just a freak incident brought on by a pair of radicalized nuts rather than an 'inevitable' response of even a small minority of Muslims against perceived attack.

Seems that has the dual usage of keeping the more radical and bigoted positions Gellar (perhaps, I haven't looked into her much) holds outside the mainstream while still acknowledging what happened.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Well, Geller shares some responsibility, as she likely knew that this would happen. As I've repeatedly stated, it was a predictable outcome, if not at this event, then at some similar event in the future. However, what's the problem with that? This is something that she should own, bravely putting on an event despite knowing the risk of an attack by extremists. If this event was really that important, if the message was that necessary, then the responsibility is something to embrace, not run from. Instead of phrasing it as "Geller is responsible for putting a number of lives at risk so that they could prove that they have a right to draw pictures that offend most members of one of the world's major religions", phrase it is "Geller is responsible for putting on a show to give artists the chance to exercise their god-given rights despite the distinct possibility of radical Islamist attacks" I mean, I tend to see the first one before the second one, but it's all a matter of perspective.

Seriously: If this show was really such a great thumb in the eye to those who would censor speech, then why wouldn't she accept responsibility when the censors attack? It shows that the message got through, if nothing else.

While the Group is responsible for the event, they are not responsible for the attack. They would gladly take responsibility for hosting the event, you saying they share responsibility for the attack denotes that they were somehow complicit, that they were, dare I say, "Asking for it"

If you host an event, and there is an outcome that is entirely predictable, perhaps possible, and you STILL put on the event, it doesn't mean that you're asking for the outcome. It could simply that you believe that the risk of said outcome is worth it. However, if you realize this ahead of time, and go ahead anyway, then it's something that, you, as the leader of the event, are responsible for to a certain degree, and it's a measure of leadership to accept responsibility.

Now, I suspect that the conclusion of this didn't exactly bring a tear to Geller's eye, and even have some idea that she might have secretly hoped for such a thing in order to bolster her vile and bigoted arguments, but I have no way of proving that, and base my speculation solely on my perception of her as a truly terrible, vicious, hateful human being.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Well, Geller shares some responsibility, as she likely knew that this would happen...

Simple statistics says that isn't correct, though. Gellar has been, from what I know, a rather loud voice of anti-Islam for more than a decade (the NY ads being the first I remember hearing of her). Messages like this have been put out, she's undoubtedly attended conferences and conventions with similar themes in the past, and those haven't seen any such attack (to my knowledge).

I'd say it's not too much to assume that, with the history of such attacks as this being exceptionally rare in the US (I mean, the Boston bombing is the last item that comes to mind US-terror wise for me, and the motivations for that are a bit wider than just 'offense to Islam' and seems to be more centered around US actions in the middle east), Gellar would have been perfectly justified in assuming that pattern would remain. Because Muslims in the US aren't violent to any degree worth mentioning. There was little reason to assume that pattern would change with this latest event when previous similar activities and events did nothing but inspire peaceful counter-protest and comment.

I mean, Gellar may have assumed something like this would eventually happen because she's a bigot. In which case this becomes a somewhat ironic argument where we argue she should've expected something like this because Muslims are going to become violent over these things even as she expected something like this to happen because Muslims are inevitably going to respond violently to offenses like this. Which is...rather disturbingly justifying her argument by saying she should've expected such an attack.

I'd personally much rather go on the assumption that Gellar's being a bigot is irrelevant and such a viewpoint is fundamentally incorrect in its assumptions about Muslims, and rather go with this being just a freak incident brought on by a pair of radicalized nuts rather than an 'inevitable' response of even a small minority of Muslims against perceived attack.

Seems that has the dual usage of keeping the more radical and bigoted positions Gellar (perhaps, I haven't looked into her much) holds outside the mainstream.

Sorry, but if you hold a Mohammed drawing event not too long after an office was stormed by radical Muslims and people were killed for drawing cartoons of Mohammed, then you have to be aware of this as a distinct possibility. And, yes, I'm aware of the awful irony that this can be used to bolster her arguments. She's not just a troll, but an expert troll.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

While the Group is responsible for the event, they are not responsible for the attack. They would gladly take responsibility for hosting the event, you saying they share responsibility for the attack denotes that they were somehow complicit, that they were, dare I say, "Asking for it"

If you host an event, and there is an outcome that is entirely predictable, perhaps possible, and you STILL put on the event, it doesn't mean that you're asking for the outcome. It could simply that you believe that the risk of said outcome is worth it. However, if you realize this ahead of time, and go ahead anyway, then it's something that, you, as the leader of the event, are responsible for to a certain degree, and it's a measure of leadership to accept responsibility.

Now, I suspect that the conclusion of this didn't exactly bring a tear to Geller's eye, and even have some idea that she might have secretly hoped for such a thing in order to bolster her vile and bigoted arguments, but I have no way of proving that, and base my speculation solely on my perception of her as a truly terrible, vicious, hateful human being.

So you're intent on blaming the victim then.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

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

Socialpath? Isn't that the two who were planning to kill people?

Freedom of speech and expression includes the ability to be offended.

I am more concerned about people trying to define what is proper speech and expression.

The plans of the people behind this show is irrelevant. I might have checked it out if I was in Texas simply because I believe in looking at everything people say is offensive.

This event was not a forced showing. You could go to it if you wanted or if you thought it was stupid; you don't.

The Muslims find it offensive. That's fine. They have the right to protest. They have the right to try an educate people. Where they go wrong is expecting everybody else to follow/respect their religion. The same can be said for every religion. The same can be said for Atheists, etc. etc.

If you don't like it. Don't go to it.

How is your world hurt? If people went nuts and banned such events, they are not going to find respect. People that don't like them, think they are monsters are only going to continue if not increase.

There are things I find offensive. There are people I find offensive.

I don't seek to censor, ban, assault or murder.

I turn the page, ignore or try to understand why they are nuts.

People need to accept asshatery as long as it doesn't seek to injury you or exclude you.

I agree. However, there's also the point that there's no reason to be a dick to numerous people who have nothing against you just to prove a point to the few who do.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

If you host an event, and there is an outcome that is entirely predictable, perhaps possible, and you STILL put on the event, it doesn't mean that you're asking for the outcome. It could simply that you believe that the risk of said outcome is worth it. However, if you realize this ahead of time, and go ahead anyway, then it's something that, you, as the leader of the event, are responsible for to a certain degree, and it's a measure of leadership to accept responsibility.

Now, I suspect that the conclusion of this didn't exactly bring a tear to Geller's eye, and even have some idea that she might have secretly hoped for such a thing in order to bolster her vile and bigoted arguments, but I have no way of proving that, and base my speculation solely on my perception of her as a truly terrible, vicious, hateful human being.

So you're intent on blaming the victim then.

No, I am not. There is literally nothing in that post that lays blame on the victim, who was the police officer wounded in the attack. As I've stated, from what I've seen, Geller is far more of a beneficiary of this attack than she is a victim.

[Occupied Deutschland]

Expectation was irrelevant to the analogy brought up.
Just as it's irrelevant to Gellar's conference.
I was, and remain, confused as to why you thought bringing it up would be relevant as the only conceivable reason based on the discussion was somehow condemning Gellar because of the expectation.

Are you saying that despite Charlie Hebdo, she wouldn't have seen this as a likely outcome?

I certainly think that's possible. The US hasn't exactly seen any immediately noteworthy such attacks (that I can think of), and the terror attacks that have occurred have largely seemed to be motivated by US policy rather than free speech that may offend some Muslims.

Of course, she may be a bigot against Islam and Muslims and just assume the worst automatically absent of any real rational reasoning to do so (which I'm at least heavily skeptical exists even with Charlie Hebdo), but such isn't really relevant to the event or discussion surrounding it (whether she assumed Muslims would attack because they were icky or because of past events in other countries doesn't matter much since security did manage to stop the attack and the only benefit to arguing down that road lies with Gellar's argument where she can justify her bigotry by claiming it saved lives. The only winning move for decency and such, in that case, is not to play.)

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Are you saying that despite Charlie Hebdo, she wouldn't have seen this as a likely outcome?

I certainly think that's possible. The US hasn't exactly seen any immediately noteworthy such attacks (that I can think of), and the terror attacks that have occurred have largely seemed to be motivated by US policy rather than free speech that may offend some Muslims.

Of course, she may be a bigot against Islam and Muslims and just assume the worst automatically absent of any real rational reasoning to do so (which I'm at least heavily skeptical exists), but such isn't really relevant to the event or discussion surrounding it (whether she assumed Muslims would attack because they were icky or because of past events in other countries doesn't matter much since security did manage to stop the attack and the only benefit to arguing down that road lies with Gellar's argument where she can justify her bigotry by claiming it saved lives. The only winning move for decency and such, in that case, is not to play.)

I'm at that Zen place where I disagree with you while simultaneously totally seeing your point.

[Pan Asian Amercian Coalition]

I wish I knew about the convention earlier so I could submit some art. I could collaborate with my idiot friends, it'd have been a gas. They would know how to maximize offensive potential.

[The Black Forrest]

Socialpath? Isn't that the two who were planning to kill people?

Freedom of speech and expression includes the ability to be offended.

I am more concerned about people trying to define what is proper speech and expression.

The plans of the people behind this show is irrelevant. I might have checked it out if I was in Texas simply because I believe in looking at everything people say is offensive.

This event was not a forced showing. You could go to it if you wanted or if you thought it was stupid; you don't.

The Muslims find it offensive. That's fine. They have the right to protest. They have the right to try an educate people. Where they go wrong is expecting everybody else to follow/respect their religion. The same can be said for every religion. The same can be said for Atheists, etc. etc.

If you don't like it. Don't go to it.

How is your world hurt? If people went nuts and banned such events, they are not going to find respect. People that don't like them, think they are monsters are only going to continue if not increase.

There are things I find offensive. There are people I find offensive.

I don't seek to censor, ban, assault or murder.

I turn the page, ignore or try to understand why they are nuts.

People need to accept asshatery as long as it doesn't seek to injury you or exclude you.

I agree. However, there's also the point that there's no reason to be a dick to numerous people who have nothing against you just to prove a point to the few who do.

That's true but people are dicks in general. We like to think we are inclusive and accept all but throw in a massive calamity and we turn on each other in a heart beat.

Look at this event. If it wasn't for the two terrorists, nobody would have heard about it.

Sometimes the best response is no response.

Remember Satanic Versus? I read that piece of garbage. I had to force myself to finish it.

Left on it's own merits it probably would have died a silent death. The best thing that happened for the book was the Fatwa of death against Rushdie.

[Occupied Deutschland]

I certainly think that's possible. The US hasn't exactly seen any immediately noteworthy such attacks (that I can think of), and the terror attacks that have occurred have largely seemed to be motivated by US policy rather than free speech that may offend some Muslims.

Of course, she may be a bigot against Islam and Muslims and just assume the worst automatically absent of any real rational reasoning to do so (which I'm at least heavily skeptical exists), but such isn't really relevant to the event or discussion surrounding it (whether she assumed Muslims would attack because they were icky or because of past events in other countries doesn't matter much since security did manage to stop the attack and the only benefit to arguing down that road lies with Gellar's argument where she can justify her bigotry by claiming it saved lives. The only winning move for decency and such, in that case, is not to play.)

I'm at that Zen place where I disagree with you while simultaneously totally seeing your point.

I think, in my bullshitting and consideration on this, I've come to see yours.
Agree to disagree and agree that being purposefully offensive for the lolz is, whatever the results and while something one is free to do, a dick move.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

So you're intent on blaming the victim then.

No, I am not. There is literally nothing in that post that lays blame on the victim, who was the police officer wounded in the attack. As I've stated, from what I've seen, Geller is far more of a beneficiary of this attack than she is a victim.

The fact that the Cop (who ironically Liberals are chanting they be disarmed) had the wherewithal and training to take down two armored attackers armed with high powered rifles, while he himself armed only with a Glock 45, doesn't mean that the group is not a victim. They were clearly the intended targets, the fact that the attackers failed to breach the perimeter doesn't change that.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

I agree. However, there's also the point that there's no reason to be a dick to numerous people who have nothing against you just to prove a point to the few who do.

That's true but people are dicks in general. We like to think we are inclusive and accept all but throw in a massive calamity and we turn on each other in a heart beat.

Look at this event. If it wasn't for the two terrorists, nobody would have heard about it.

Sometimes the best response is no response.

Remember Satanic Versus? I read that piece of garbage. I had to force myself to finish it.

Left on it's own merits it probably would have died a silent death. The best thing that happened for the book was the Fatwa of death against Rushdie.

Oh, there's no argument that the response likely made things worse. Hell, if it hadn't been for the Charlie Hebdo attack, it's less likely that this event would have been that popular to begin with. Each attack makes things a bit worse for them, and breeds more resentment. My hope is that it doesn't get taken out on American Muslims as a whole.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

I'm at that Zen place where I disagree with you while simultaneously totally seeing your point.

I think, in my bullshitting and consideration on this, I've come to see yours.
Agree to disagree and agree that being purposefully offensive for the lolz is, whatever the results and while something one is free to do, a dick move.

That was my main point. Thank you for getting back to it, since I think that it was lost in the shuffle.

Let's add "Shooting someone or many someones over religious offense is horrible, even if they were intentionally being a dick to you."

[Hentar]

In America:
Freedom of Speech
Freedom of the Press
Freedom of religion
Freedom to bear arms.
Do you see the flaw here?

[Yumyumsuppertime]

No, I am not. There is literally nothing in that post that lays blame on the victim, who was the police officer wounded in the attack. As I've stated, from what I've seen, Geller is far more of a beneficiary of this attack than she is a victim.

The fact that the Cop (who ironically Liberals are chanting they be disarmed) had the wherewithal and training to take down two armored attackers armed with high powered rifles, while he himself armed only with a Glock 45, doesn't mean that the group is not a victim. They were clearly the attended targets, the fact that the attackers failed to breach the perimeter doesn't change that.

Okay. It's not a point that I think is particularly important to argue.