Dutch Cartoons in the News, Yet Again

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5
 

CM156:
Personally I consider the gay wedding cake debate to be rather absurd, but that's neither here nor there.

In a way it is; but it still represents a significant issue of public debate. The nature of "freedom" is not a simple concept. For many libertarians it's about "negative freedom" and for liberals has a much stronger component of "positive liberty". And we have to accept that one person's freedom really can be another person's restriction.

"Fighting words" are a very narrow exception that the court has been trimming ever since its inception.

Nevertheless, it exists and represents a societal belief (even if dying out) that violence is an acceptable response to unkind speech. I might point out much entertainment media has characters attacking others for what they say, and it's often portrayed as righteous. That it does so clearly reflects societal belief that there's a level of verbal pestering that deserves a slap round the chops.

CM156:

A popular piece of content for these cartoons is Aisha. "Here's a picture of Muhammad with his 9-year-old wife, the age at which their marriage was consummated" is less an act of hatred and more pointing out a bit of history that most Islamic scholars accept as valid. And you know, it's really hard to justify restraining speech that is true.

Such speech shouldn't be legally restrained. It might, perhaps, be voluntarily refrained from by people who should know better.

Of course, tell you what you could do with pictures of Mohammed and Aisha. The historical record on how old Aisha was at marriage varies considerably, with a range of ages anywhere up to about 18. Centuries ago, the lowest in the record was favoured in large part because it emphasised her purity, although it's very awkward nowadays. So you could make a drawing of Mohammed and a 16-year old Aisha, adding the relevant textual quotation to the picture. Thus could you portray Mohammed in a non-harmful way whilst also constructively challenging the rationale of child brides.

But these cartoonists aren't going to do that, are they? When you look at the people who go round saying "Mohammed was a paedo", they are almost one and all people highly hostile to Islam. Let's not ever embarrass ourselves by disingenuously pretending they merely want to speak "the truth".

CM156:

If I recall the thing you're talking about, it was that in the early days of the NSDAP, the Sturmabteilung would go out in full force to march and wait for the Reds to throw the first punch, therefore allowing the SA to claim self-defense and denying that same ability to the Red Front. And it was an effective tactic. If you force your opponent to throw the first strike, you deny them moral high ground in the eyes of many people, regardless of how "fair" that is. I would think the lesson of this would be "don't go toe-to-toe with people like this if they didn't start the violence, because it's bad optics."

Depends on how you spin it. Or more accurately ... it depends on if you 'hit' someone really, really hard and don't recover fast enough before you've taken all their stuff.

That being said, the NSDAP wasn't an anomaly of Weimar Republic society. The key big thing (barring all the moral arguments concerning structuralism/anti-structuralism of historiography brought up) during the Historikerstreit was just how actually divergent was the NSDAP from the surrounding political environment of the Weimar Republic. At least for the structuralist historiographers that saw it as an academic and moral failure that some German historians are just pretending as if it was isolated and on its own without any connections to Germany's past before the Third Reich.

After all, the Weimar Republic purposefully allowed the rise of militarized political parties given the Treaty of Versailles.

The Reichswehr, the actual military of the Weimar Republic, was only about 100,000 strong in 1931. The NSDAP & Nazi SA was 3 million. Many of whom had undergone special 'totally-not-army' military training, and were allowed access to weapons and specialized combat schools the Republic had established.

So the Weimar Republic was trying to blatantly create its own Wehrmacht while being able to pretend like it wasn't. But you know ... it was. It was just waiting for a moment that its own military strength would dissuade other nations from attacking it so it could perhaps pursue some of its most embittered concessions from the Great War.

So this argument of the 'Nazis were anomalous to German history' is utterly fucking bogus ... the Weimar Republic created the society of which the Nazi SA would naturally emerge ... because in a culture of strength where everyone would ideally join a 'worker's militia', only the 'strongest' militia survives. There were running street battles between Marxists and Nazi SA brigades well before 1933.

There's an argument there that regardless of whether the NSDAP won or not, you still would have gotten a Czechoslovakia for instance.

There's an argument there that regardless of who won in 1933, you still might have had a world war ... just that we might not have been calling them Nazis. The Weimar Republic had personally stoked the flames of fascist fervor, and even if they didn't like the end result it was still their motivation to see the sort of society born from that that leads to a Third Reich.

My thoughts? Charlie Hebdo didn't announce. Charlie Hebdo did. Charlie Hebdo didn't retract and asked for permision. Charlie Hebdo got shot. Charlie Hebdo survived. Charlie Hebdo still lives.

Is there a moral in this story? I don't know; but they certainly had more guts than these attention seekers begging for far-right votes.

evilthecat:

This post originally had language which wasn't really warranted. Editing it out because it's not really the impression I want to leave on anyone. But needless to say, I think this is a little naive.

For what it's worth, I wasn't offended by it.

Der Sturmer used to publish semi-pornographic accounts of lascivious Jews and their perverse sexual behaviour alongside references to Jewish religious texts. You know exactly why they did that, and you know exactly what it does and why it works.

Because people tend to get bent out of shape when it comes to sex?

As an aside, have you ever read the Talmud? I read all the parts that were supposed to be scandalous and whatnot but it was somewhat tame. Also a very dry read.

Where is the thing you are drawing attention to?

Couple things:
1. The fact that some members of a religion are attempting to apply religious rules to non-members.
2. The historical personhood of Muhammad is uncontested (unlike some religious founders) and we know a great deal about him. And what we know is often unsavory. We are allowed to criticize historical figures, and no one group can claim that their figure is somehow off limits.

You are not drawing attention to anything. You are not actually saying or defending anything of value or substance, and even if you were there is nothing to draw attention to.

The fact that we're still dealing with this issue a decade after Jyllands-Posten really got this started is to me, proof that it's still something that needs to be talked about.

You are attacking people who very specifically do not have access to national media, or mainstream political authority to fight their battles for them. They do not get to speak back to you as equals, which is why you can presume their response on their behalf.

They have their own advocacy groups. If they want to speak to me as equals, I welcome it.

You are having an argument with yourself, and then demanding you be allowed to win because anything less is a victory for terrorism.

I'm having an argument with you right now. Also, if I demand to win an argument against myself, I'm also demanding to lose an argument against myself.

The legal license to speak does not make you justified, or absolve you of the responsibility for what you wish to say.

I take full responsibility for what I say.

I am not accountable, however, for how some groups choose to respond.

You can dress power up as freedom all you want, but if you require power over others to feel free then you are a bully, not a hero.

Have you ever looked at many of the cartoons of Muhammad? Not all of them are negative, even from the set that started this all. Art is open to a wide variety of interpretations.

It's not just that negative depictions are forbidden, it's that any depiction is forbidden. So the picture I drew of Muhammad petting a cat and picking flowers for his wife is just as against these people's rules as the picture of him sitting on a throne of skulls.

lionsprey:
-snip-

See my post above about the fact that all depictions are banned and that no one group may claim ownership of a historical figure.

Agema:
In a way it is; but it still represents a significant issue of public debate. The nature of "freedom" is not a simple concept. For many libertarians it's about "negative freedom" and for liberals has a much stronger component of "positive liberty". And we have to accept that one person's freedom really can be another person's restriction.

Oh, I accept this.
I'm just saying I find the debate silly to begin with.

Nevertheless, it exists and represents a societal belief (even if dying out) that violence is an acceptable response to unkind speech.

More "explainable" that "acceptable"

Of course, tell you what you could do with pictures of Mohammed and Aisha. The historical record on how old Aisha was at marriage varies considerably, with a range of ages anywhere up to about 18. Centuries ago, the lowest in the record was favoured in large part because it emphasised her purity, although it's very awkward nowadays. So you could make a drawing of Mohammed and a 16-year old Aisha, adding the relevant textual quotation to the picture. Thus could you portray Mohammed in a non-harmful way whilst also constructively challenging the rationale of child brides.

Yes, I could do that. It's a shame that people would still issue threats because it's any depiction that's forbidden, not just negative ones.

And I am aware of the controversy around Aisha's age.

CaitSeith:
My thoughts? Charlie Hebdo didn't announce. Charlie Hebdo did. Charlie Hebdo didn't retract and asked for permision. Charlie Hebdo got shot. Charlie Hebdo survived. Charlie Hebdo still lives.

Is there a moral in this story? I don't know; but they certainly had more guts than these attention seekers begging for far-right votes.

I do have to slightly defend Wilders on this.....ugh.

Saying Wilders doesn't have guts is just factually inaccurate. Wilders has been living under maximum security protection for over a decade now thanks to his criticism of Islam. He receives threats daily, both from random idiots but also from dangerous groups such as Al Quida and IS who both called for his murder. Some idiot was even arrested near Parliament with plans to murder Wilders.

Threats to Wilders life are so frequent and are considered so credible that Wilder's pretty much isn't able to live a normal life. If he's not in parliament or on campaign he's in hiding.

Wilders most certainly did this for attention but Wilders stopped the cartoon contest not only because he already achieved all he set out to do with it but also because there was real reason to fear for his safety or that of other Dutchmen.

Hades:

CaitSeith:
My thoughts? Charlie Hebdo didn't announce. Charlie Hebdo did. Charlie Hebdo didn't retract and asked for permision. Charlie Hebdo got shot. Charlie Hebdo survived. Charlie Hebdo still lives.

Is there a moral in this story? I don't know; but they certainly had more guts than these attention seekers begging for far-right votes.

I do have to slightly defend Wilders on this.....ugh.

Saying Wilders doesn't have guts is just factually inaccurate. Wilders has been living under maximum security protection for over a decade now thanks to his criticism of Islam. He receives threats daily, both from random idiots but also from dangerous groups such as Al Quida and IS who both called for his murder. Some idiot was even arrested near Parliament with plans to murder Wilders.

Threats to Wilders life are so frequent and are considered so credible that Wilder's pretty much isn't able to live a normal life. If he's not in parliament or on campaign he's in hiding.

Wilders most certainly did this for attention but Wilders stopped the cartoon contest not only because he already achieved all he set out to do with it but also because there was real reason to fear for his safety or that of other Dutchmen.

You say this as if he isn't an antagonizing bigot who poked the bear and now has an agitated bear outside his house.

Sounds to me like he gets off from having people out to get him. I mean, that is literally why he did this contest.

Edit: I believe the term is 'professional victim'. ;)

Saelune:

Hades:

CaitSeith:
My thoughts? Charlie Hebdo didn't announce. Charlie Hebdo did. Charlie Hebdo didn't retract and asked for permision. Charlie Hebdo got shot. Charlie Hebdo survived. Charlie Hebdo still lives.

Is there a moral in this story? I don't know; but they certainly had more guts than these attention seekers begging for far-right votes.

I do have to slightly defend Wilders on this.....ugh.

Saying Wilders doesn't have guts is just factually inaccurate. Wilders has been living under maximum security protection for over a decade now thanks to his criticism of Islam. He receives threats daily, both from random idiots but also from dangerous groups such as Al Quida and IS who both called for his murder. Some idiot was even arrested near Parliament with plans to murder Wilders.

Threats to Wilders life are so frequent and are considered so credible that Wilder's pretty much isn't able to live a normal life. If he's not in parliament or on campaign he's in hiding.

Wilders most certainly did this for attention but Wilders stopped the cartoon contest not only because he already achieved all he set out to do with it but also because there was real reason to fear for his safety or that of other Dutchmen.

You say this as if he isn't an antagonizing bigot who poked the bear and now has an agitated bear outside his house.

Sounds to me like he gets off from having people out to get him. I mean, that is literally why he did this contest.

Edit: I believe the term is 'professional victim'. ;)

Wilders is indeed an ''antagonizing bigot who poked the bear'' but that shouldn't matter. In the free world its generally agreed upon that robbing someone of his personal life and killing him the moment you find him unguarded isn't how we deal with opposition. Wilders has already been called to court for his behavior and has in fact been declared guilty. In the free world that's where the story should end. We have no need for lunatics and murderers to get involved, its even incredibly counterproductive if they would because the moment Wilders gets murdered he's a martyr that will forever serve as a rallying cry for a party that just had its fears legitimized.

There are deeper reasons why Wilders did this contest than him ''getting off'' from it. Wilders is actually in a bit of a dilemma. After last election Wilders faces direct competition for the first time. There's a new star rising in Dutch populism. This new populist has charm, something Wilders has always lacked and he seems to carefully avoid all the mistakes Wilders has made. Despite his fame Wilders hasn't actually accomplished anything in his career. He's never been into the government and him betraying the government that one time they made him an unofficial partner ensured moderate right wing parties will never deal with him again. With Wilders having achieved nothing for all those years and with the whole establishment uniting against him its not unlikely that his voters might defect to the new populist who might actually get things done. Wilders desperately need attention to avoid this scenario and now he has it.

Hades:

CaitSeith:
My thoughts? Charlie Hebdo didn't announce. Charlie Hebdo did. Charlie Hebdo didn't retract and asked for permision. Charlie Hebdo got shot. Charlie Hebdo survived. Charlie Hebdo still lives.

Is there a moral in this story? I don't know; but they certainly had more guts than these attention seekers begging for far-right votes.

I do have to slightly defend Wilders on this.....ugh.

Saying Wilders doesn't have guts is just factually inaccurate. Wilders has been living under maximum security protection for over a decade now thanks to his criticism of Islam. He receives threats daily, both from random idiots but also from dangerous groups such as Al Quida and IS who both called for his murder. Some idiot was even arrested near Parliament with plans to murder Wilders.

Threats to Wilders life are so frequent and are considered so credible that Wilder's pretty much isn't able to live a normal life. If he's not in parliament or on campaign he's in hiding.

Wilders most certainly did this for attention but Wilders stopped the cartoon contest not only because he already achieved all he set out to do with it but also because there was real reason to fear for his safety or that of other Dutchmen.

With all the fearmongering contained in the far-right politicians' rhetoric, I wonder if any of them are able to live a normal life (unless they don't belief half of what they say). I have no sympathy for people who resolve arguments with bullets; but I have little sympathy for Wilders, who can protect himself well, live a secure life, and still have a prolific politic career based on hatred and fearmongering. He wouldn't be pulling these stunts if he didn't feel invulnerable.

Hades:

Saelune:

Hades:

I do have to slightly defend Wilders on this.....ugh.

Saying Wilders doesn't have guts is just factually inaccurate. Wilders has been living under maximum security protection for over a decade now thanks to his criticism of Islam. He receives threats daily, both from random idiots but also from dangerous groups such as Al Quida and IS who both called for his murder. Some idiot was even arrested near Parliament with plans to murder Wilders.

Threats to Wilders life are so frequent and are considered so credible that Wilder's pretty much isn't able to live a normal life. If he's not in parliament or on campaign he's in hiding.

Wilders most certainly did this for attention but Wilders stopped the cartoon contest not only because he already achieved all he set out to do with it but also because there was real reason to fear for his safety or that of other Dutchmen.

You say this as if he isn't an antagonizing bigot who poked the bear and now has an agitated bear outside his house.

Sounds to me like he gets off from having people out to get him. I mean, that is literally why he did this contest.

Edit: I believe the term is 'professional victim'. ;)

Wilders is indeed an ''antagonizing bigot who poked the bear'' but that shouldn't matter. In the free world its generally agreed upon that robbing someone of his personal life and killing him the moment you find him unguarded isn't how we deal with opposition. Wilders has already been called to court for his behavior and has in fact been declared guilty. In the free world that's where the story should end. We have no need for lunatics and murderers to get involved, its even incredibly counterproductive if they would because the moment Wilders gets murdered he's a martyr that will forever serve as a rallying cry for a party that just had its fears legitimized.

There are deeper reasons why Wilders did this contest than him ''getting off'' from it. Wilders is actually in a bit of a dilemma. After last election Wilders faces direct competition for the first time. There's a new star rising in Dutch populism. This new populist has charm, something Wilders has always lacked and he seems to carefully avoid all the mistakes Wilders has made. Despite his fame Wilders hasn't actually accomplished anything in his career. He's never been into the government and him betraying the government that one time they made him an unofficial partner ensured moderate right wing parties will never deal with him again. With Wilders having achieved nothing for all those years and with the whole establishment uniting against him its not unlikely that his voters might defect to the new populist who might actually get things done. Wilders desperately need attention to avoid this scenario and now he has it.

It should matter, it completely matters! Its called context! What even is a 'free world' in this case? Cause we don't live in a 'free world', never have, never will. We live in a world full of other people who are sometimes different, sometimes similar, but very varied.

How about in a free world that lacks both crazy Muslims who will kill over a drawing AND the bigots who would antagonize them with exactly that just to justify retaliation? Cause then poof goes Wilders and we can all sleep easy. But we live in a world with both of these, and we can either blame one side unfairly, or we can take in the context of this and apply fair judgement, and in it, Wilders is as much the villain.

Wilders is a horrible person and I have no empathy for him for the situation he put himself intentionally in.

Saelune:
But we live in a world with both of these, and we can either blame one side unfairly, or we can take in the context of this and apply fair judgement, and in it, Wilders is as much the villain.

You have a remarkably peculiar view of "fair judgement."

You say this as if he isn't an antagonizing bigot who poked the bear and now has an agitated bear outside his house.

Poor analogy as bears have no coherent theory of mind and simply act on instinct. Also, we don't let bears live in our society. So are "bears" stand-ins for "Muslims" in your analogy.

CM156:

Saelune:
But we live in a world with both of these, and we can either blame one side unfairly, or we can take in the context of this and apply fair judgement, and in it, Wilders is as much the villain.

You have a remarkably peculiar view of "fair judgement."

You say this as if he isn't an antagonizing bigot who poked the bear and now has an agitated bear outside his house.

Poor analogy as bears have no coherent theory of mind and simply act on instinct. Also, we don't let bears live in our society. So are "bears" stand-ins for "Muslims" in your analogy.

I think your own views of fair are wrong, personally.

And I am not going to play your game to twist my words into dehumanizing Muslims. Wilders intentionally did something wrong, knowing what would happen.

Saelune:

And I am not going to play your game to twist my words into dehumanizing Muslims. Wilders intentionally did something wrong, knowing what would happen.

You're the person who gave the comparison, I'm pointing out the unfortunate implications. Maybe, just maybe, we accept the notion that people don't ask to be murdered and that what you're doing is simply a form of victim blaming. "Oh, you should have known that would set him off" isn't really something anyone should ever accept.

I'm also shocked that you're giving such overwhelming deference to religious sensibilities, considering many of your past posts.

CM156:

Saelune:

And I am not going to play your game to twist my words into dehumanizing Muslims. Wilders intentionally did something wrong, knowing what would happen.

You're the person who gave the comparison, I'm pointing out the unfortunate implications. Maybe, just maybe, we accept the notion that people don't ask to be murdered and that what you're doing is simply a form of victim blaming. "Oh, you should have known that would set him off" isn't really something anyone should ever accept.

I'm also shocked that you're giving such overwhelming deference to religious sensibilities, considering many of your past posts.

The people defending Wilders are victim blaming. That White Stripes song was very much relevant to this topic.

Maybe, just maybe, when I claim to be someone who cares about equal rights, I actually mean it? Maybe, just maybe, I actually have the ability to defend people, even if they 'disagree with me', despite the intentionally false narrative many on here push of me accusing everyone I disagree with of being Nazis? (Instead of the real reason being that I disagree with everyone who thinks Nazism is ok)

Islam and Christianity are equally bigoted. I will not feed into the Christians' narrative that Islam is any less bigoted than they are. It is only because Christianity is so dedicated to forcing everyone else to be Christian that they ended up in the situation where they have to deal with diversity and notions against them instead of having a more complete monoploy on religious control of their countries.

I disagree with tons of things Islam imposes on people, and think they should be fought, but drawings of their God is so low on that list. Now, the freedom of women to not be oppressed and basically be slaves? Sure, lets fight that, violence be damned, or LGBT people not being butchured, lets fight that tooth and nail, but this drawing nonsense is just that. Pick a hill to die on and a martyr that is sincere, then we will talk. Wilders and drawing Muhammad is not that. It is a bigoted ploy to justify violent retaliation, it is not a statement of freedom of expression, nor is it a statement against violence. It is a two-faced call for violence under the lie of 'They came at me first'.

Saelune:
The people defending Wilders are victim blaming.

You owe me a new pair of sides because I burst mine after reading this.

Maybe, just maybe, when I claim to be someone who cares about equal rights, I actually mean it? Maybe, just maybe, I actually have the ability to defend people, even if they 'disagree with me', despite the intentionally false narrative many on here push of me accusing everyone I disagree with of being Nazis? (Instead of the real reason being that I disagree with everyone who thinks Nazism is ok)

Considering with how broad a brush you paint when it comes to Nazis? I'm not so sure.

I disagree with tons of things Islam imposes on people, and think they should be fought, but drawings of their God is so low on that list. Now, the freedom of women to not be oppressed and basically be slaves? Sure, lets fight that, violence be damned, or LGBT people not being butchured, lets fight that tooth and nail, but this drawing nonsense is just that. Pick a hill to die on and a martyr that is sincere, then we will talk. Wilders and drawing Muhammad is not that. It is a bigoted ploy to justify violent retaliation, it is not a statement of freedom of expression, nor is it a statement against violence. It is a two-faced call for violence under the lie of 'They came at me first'.

When you want to debate a topic, it's imprudent to cede any area of conversation as "off limits" to the people you are discussing the topic to.

And yes, if one side (in this case, Jihadists) start killing people because of drawings, they did come first.

Tell me, did "Theo" van Gogh have it coming? If not, it didn't change the fact that he was murdered by someone for criticizing Islam.

CM156:

Saelune:
The people defending Wilders are victim blaming.

You owe me a new pair of sides because I burst mine after reading this.

Maybe, just maybe, when I claim to be someone who cares about equal rights, I actually mean it? Maybe, just maybe, I actually have the ability to defend people, even if they 'disagree with me', despite the intentionally false narrative many on here push of me accusing everyone I disagree with of being Nazis? (Instead of the real reason being that I disagree with everyone who thinks Nazism is ok)

Considering with how broad a brush you paint when it comes to Nazis? I'm not so sure.

I disagree with tons of things Islam imposes on people, and think they should be fought, but drawings of their God is so low on that list. Now, the freedom of women to not be oppressed and basically be slaves? Sure, lets fight that, violence be damned, or LGBT people not being butchured, lets fight that tooth and nail, but this drawing nonsense is just that. Pick a hill to die on and a martyr that is sincere, then we will talk. Wilders and drawing Muhammad is not that. It is a bigoted ploy to justify violent retaliation, it is not a statement of freedom of expression, nor is it a statement against violence. It is a two-faced call for violence under the lie of 'They came at me first'.

When you want to debate a topic, it's imprudent to cede any area of conversation as "off limits" to the people you are discussing the topic to.

And yes, if one side (in this case, Jihadists) start killing people because of drawings, they did come first.

Tell me, did "Theo" van Gogh have it coming? If not, it didn't change the fact that he was murdered by someone for criticizing Islam.

What little civility is left between us in this argument is gone now with that.

Its not that broad a brush. But again, I think your own judgements tend to be very wrong. You support Trump, I oppose him utterly.

Wilders was antagonizing people intentionally, cause he knew it would. He was the aggressor. Do not take the effect and make it the cause. (I doubt you listend to the song).

*looks up person* He didnt make a contest to intentionally antagonize people to violence. But if this is the road you want to take, lets condemn all Christians for every KKK murder. :)

Saelune:
What little civility is left between us in this argument is gone now with that.

I've given up trying to convince you. More than a year ago. Now I'm just trying to convince third parties reading this. And have a little fun arguing with people. It's like crack cocaine for me.

Its not that broad a brush. But again, I think your own judgements tend to be very wrong. You support Trump, I oppose him utterly.

I support a majority of what Trump does but have issues with some of his things, like his view on the middle east.

Wilders was antagonizing people intentionally, cause he knew it would. He was the aggressor.

Now I'm going to have to send you a bill for the wear and tear on my eyes for all the rolling they're doing.

Pictures are not aggression. Don't know what sort of world you live in where violence is an acceptable response to drawings, but there you have it. I'm very glad I don't live in this world of yours.

*looks up person* He didnt make a contest to intentionally antagonize people to violence. But if this is the road you want to take, lets condemn all Christians for every KKK murder. :)

Cute, but I never said we should condemn all Muslims :) So try again, sweety *Kissy wink emoji*

CM156:

Saelune:
What little civility is left between us in this argument is gone now with that.

I've given up trying to convince you. More than a year ago. Now I'm just trying to convince third parties reading this. And have a little fun arguing with people. It's like crack cocaine for me.

Its not that broad a brush. But again, I think your own judgements tend to be very wrong. You support Trump, I oppose him utterly.

I support a majority of what Trump does but have issues with some of his things, like his view on the middle east.

Wilders was antagonizing people intentionally, cause he knew it would. He was the aggressor.

Now I'm going to have to send you a bill for the wear and tear on my eyes for all the rolling they're doing.

Pictures are not aggression. Don't know what sort of world you live in where violence is an acceptable response to drawings, but there you have it. I'm very glad I don't live in this world of yours.

*looks up person* He didnt make a contest to intentionally antagonize people to violence. But if this is the road you want to take, lets condemn all Christians for every KKK murder. :)

Cute, but I never said we should condemn all Muslims :) So try again, sweety *Kissy wink emoji*

I never had the notion that someone with a Trump avatar would ever change their views to align with my own.

You do not have enough issues with Trump. If you support him at all, that is too much.

Now you are just being rude.

Saelune:

CM156:

Saelune:
What little civility is left between us in this argument is gone now with that.

I've given up trying to convince you. More than a year ago. Now I'm just trying to convince third parties reading this. And have a little fun arguing with people. It's like crack cocaine for me.

Its not that broad a brush. But again, I think your own judgements tend to be very wrong. You support Trump, I oppose him utterly.

I support a majority of what Trump does but have issues with some of his things, like his view on the middle east.

Wilders was antagonizing people intentionally, cause he knew it would. He was the aggressor.

Now I'm going to have to send you a bill for the wear and tear on my eyes for all the rolling they're doing.

Pictures are not aggression. Don't know what sort of world you live in where violence is an acceptable response to drawings, but there you have it. I'm very glad I don't live in this world of yours.

*looks up person* He didnt make a contest to intentionally antagonize people to violence. But if this is the road you want to take, lets condemn all Christians for every KKK murder. :)

Cute, but I never said we should condemn all Muslims :) So try again, sweety *Kissy wink emoji*

I never had the notion that someone with a Trump avatar would ever change their views to align with my own.

You do not have enough issues with Trump. If you support him at all, that is too much.

Now you are just being rude.

So basically this thread has gone right off the rails, eh? I'm going to contact a mod to request we lock things up here before someone (me) goes too far and breaks a site rule.

CM156:
So basically this thread has gone right off the rails, eh? I'm going to contact a mod to request we lock things up here before someone (me) goes too far and breaks a site rule.

Agreed

image

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked