...that they can't react to them without resorting to violence? They don't belong here. Because we live in a society of free speech. That's all speech, all the time. So if I drew a picture of Mohammed peforming fellatio on a pig while wearing a shirt with the star of David on it, I have every right to. And you have absolutely no right to kill me over it no matter how mean spirited and nasty it was. If you can't handle free speech without murdering someone, go back to the third word cesspool where you belong. I'm not a Muslim so I'm not subject to the rules of your religion. Sorry.

You know what a better solution would be? Draw a picture of something I don't like. I'm an atheist, so if I do a drawing of Muhammad getting butt *beep* by a Jew while dressed up like a dog, draw a picture of a famous atheist, such as Dawkins or Hitchens, getting their dicks chopped off. I wouldn't like it but I sure as hell am not going to put a bullet in your head over something so trivial.

And to any SJWs or progressives who defend this kind of behavior, go fuck yourselves.

Well, they would suggest that by doing that that you don't belong here.

So what we have are two people saying that the other doesn't belong here.

Except they would be wrong since I'm not the one trying to suppress free speech with threats or acts of violence. Moron.

Except they would be wrong since I'm not the one trying to suppress free speech with threats or acts of violence.

Well, they would say that your freedom of speech is the problem.

And that therefore they are in the right.

Moron.

That was a bit unnecessary.

Except it's not. The problem is they're too sensitive to free speech. So they have two choices 1). Grow a spine or 2). Piss off back to the third world hell hole they came from where free speech is not allowed, because that would be more to their liking.

Free speech is more important than hurt feelings. MUCH more important. And the fact that you're defending these loons tells me where your priorities lie.

They would say otherwise.

They would say that defending the Prophet is far more important than freedom of speech.

And the fact that you're defending these loons tells me where your priorities lie.

I'm not defending anybody.

I'm attempting to make you understand that there is no empirical measure for belief.

If that's how they are, they don't belong here. Sorry. You can make excuses for them all you want.

If that's how they are, they don't belong here.

They disagree.

You can make excuses for them all you want.

I've made no excuses.

I've merely attempted to make you understand that an alternative position, no matter how unpalatable, exists.

Well they can take that "alternative position" back to an oppressive third world country where it belongs. It doesn't belong in a society where the law allows for free speech. What part of this are you not understanding.

You might as well be saying, "A rapist will tell you rape is acceptable." It really is that ridiculous.

Well they can take that "alternative position" back to an oppressive third world country where it belongs. It doesn't belong in a society where the law allows for free speech. What part of this are you not understanding.

The part where they are already citizens of our countries.

There is no sending them "back".

They are from "here".

Well send them somewhere else. I don't care where. We shouldn't have to change our values to accommodate people who are this sensitive. Either accept this is a society of free speech or fuck off and die.

If your values make it impossible to live in a society, then you don't belong in that society. Period. End of story.

They are citizens.

They would like to send you somewhere else too.

What's the diff?

Tell me, how many Muslim cocks do you take up your booty hole every day? At least five from what I can tell.

What they want is irrelevant. Their values contradict the laws of this land, so they don't belong here. Or are you seriously suggesting we should restrict free speech to accommodate their backwards ideals? Rapists think rape is acceptable, should we change the law to accommodate them?

"What's the diff"

The difference is that I'm not in support of censoring free speech. Therefore my values don't contradict the society I live in.

Tell me, how many Muslim cocks do you take up your booty hole every day? At least five from what I can tell.

Huh?

Why would you suggest that?

What they want is irrelevant.

They feel the same way about you.

Their values contradict the laws of this land, so they don't belong here.

Manmade laws.

Their laws are those (apparently) of God and therefore supersede any manmade laws.

The difference is that I'm not in support of censoring free speech

Me neither.

They are.

Therefore my values don't contradict the society I live in.

Correct.

Your values may, however, contradict theirs.

You are just determined to defend their idiocy, aren't you? You would celebrate if another terrorist attack were committed here.

You actually think people belong in a society whose values are completely contradictory to theirs? If so, you are an idiot.

Your damn right my values contradict theirs. Mine are more civilized. Mine don't restrict people because of hurt feelings. Your feelings don't matter. Sorry.

You are just determined to defend their idiocy, aren't you? You would celebrate if another terrorist attack were committed here.

I'm not defending anything.

You actually think people belong in a society whose values are completely contradictory to theirs? If so, you are an idiot.

Me?

No.

Your damn right my values contradict theirs. Mine are more civilized. Mine don't restrict people because of hurt feelings. Your feelings don't matter. Sorry.

They do to me

Sorry.

Oh so you're perfectly okay with people being murdered over drawings of Mohammed. Nice. You're in favor of passing laws restricing free speech over hurt feelings. If so, you're a fascist.

Good old Charlie Hebdo magazine printed a cartoon of Christ being sodomised- would you be happy to see that reproduced on the front page of, say The New York Times? Would all Americans just smile at it and go about their business?

I'm not a Christian, so I wouldn't care. I'm an atheist. But if people drew unflattering pictures of atheists, I wouldn't go around slaughtering people. And any Christians who react to such a thing with violence don't belong here either. Free speech is more important than hurt feelings.

Oh so you're perfectly okay with people being murdered over drawings of Mohammed.

Not even vaguely.

Where did you get that impression?

You're in favor of passing laws restricing free speech over hurt feelings.

Not even vaguely.

Where did you get that impression?

The part where they are already citizens of our countries.
There is no sending them "back".
They are from "here".

The first amendment of the U.S. Constitution is the law of the land. When a person becomes a citizen they take this oath:
"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."

So to then go against this must mean they lied under oath.

If they are born here this is still the law of the land and there are two choices...

1- lobby for a new amendment

2- since the U.S. doesn't force you to stay- move away

Using harsh language is also a kind of violence. According to Buddha.

Well Buddha is a dumbass. Plus that sounds exactly like something Anita Sarkeesian would say.

Buddha is a dumbass.

Now there's a t-shirt.

Yeesh. You are angry. You need a nap, you're cranky when you're tired :/

Actually I heard it from the guy who plays Spock in the original Star Trek - in the computer game Civilisation.

Well that computer game is wrong. Words are not violent. Nobody dropped dead because of harsh language.

>>27
If harsh words have no effect, then why do people feel the need to use harsh language if they are frustrated with someone? Also violence would not neccesarily entail death. A parent beating her child is commiting violence, but is not attempting to kill her child. Now new studies have shown that scolding children has the same bad psychological effect as actually slapping a child.

Show me one person who dropped dead because someone called them a name. No Muslims are going to die just because I drew a picture of Mohammed performing oral sex on a pig while dressed up like a dog. Free speech is more important than feelings. Sorry.

You just glossing over the fact that in the United States of America Freedom of Speech is protected by our laws. Murder is against the law and usually punishable by life in prison or death.

Why are you acting like Americans expressing their rights is on par with murder?

And to any SJWs or progressives who defend this kind of behavior, go fuck yourselves.

Haha. Are you actually not now being kind of a social Justice Warrior youself right now. A Melissa Harris Perry from MSNBC put it, the Ku Klux Klan were social justice warriors. They were just fighting for a different kind of social justice. A social justice where white protestant men were more entitled than others.

If you're talking about the Danish cartoons, yes, the riots and such were insane, but let's not forget the backstory. It's powermongers in undemocratic régimes who are the real problem.

And if not the Danish cartoons, what are you talking about?

How about Christians who are so offended by abortion that they slaughter people for just standing near a Planned Parenthood clinic?

They're despicable too but this thread isn't about them. Frankly, religion should be made illegal at this point. It's a threat to social progress.

Okay, so you think outlawing religion is feasible, but not stricter gun control?

There's an amendment about religion in the Constitution too, you know.