"Innocence of Muslims" Filmmaker Likely Doesn't Exist, Film May Not Exist

[Elok]

These aren't eagles but people.

Also Libyan mobs don't use DDT. It's almost like the example isn't meant to be an exact counterpart or something...

So long as they died for a good cause eh? We need our novels dammit!

Like I said, it's not the artistic merit so much as the intention.

[Wezil]

Right that's what I'm on about. So long as the intention was to provide us with some fresh entertainment a few dozen dead is well worth it.

[Uncle Sparky]

Right that's what I'm on about. So long as the intention was to provide us with some fresh entertainment a few dozen dead is well worth it.

Exactly. Damn actors' unions. Back in the good old gays, if you had a stampede scene, you'd have dead and wounded horses, and at least a couple of injured extras. And that's before the movies even released!

[SlowwHand]

Back in the good old gays? You mean, old actors that are gay?

[Wezil]

Exactly. Damn actors' unions. Back in the good old gays, if you had a stampede scene, you'd have dead and wounded horses, and at least a couple of injured extras. And that's before the movies even released!

[Wezil]

I for one am tired of the original debate but...

Everyone's asking that. I'm asking that, too {that the Muslims learn to ignore trolls}. I happen to also be asking people like this guy not to be dumb****s until such time as hundreds of millions of mostly illiterate people spontaneously adopt our views WRT freedom of speech. The two requests are not opposed; indeed, I consider them complementary.

(parentheses added)

I didn't want to let this go as I think it was a very good point.

It's where we diverge on our thinking. I too can appreciate why they get as riled as they do but I don't think the long term solution should involve us stepping back while we wait for them to move forward. First, there is the obvious appeasement aspect in that we would be rewarding their bad behaviour by giving them what they want, and second, this process could take a very long time.

Quite honestly they will get where they need to be faster when they come to realise that free people in free countries are not going to stop saying what they want (trollish or otherwise) because they throw a fit. Let them riot in the street every day for the next ten years if need be. Eventually they will figure it out.

[Kidlicious]

I for one am tired of the original debate but...



(parentheses added)

I didn't want to let this go as I think it was a very good point.

It's where we diverge on our thinking. I too can appreciate why they get as riled as they do but I don't think the long term solution should involve us stepping back while we wait for them to move forward. First, there is the obvious appeasement aspect in that we would be rewarding their bad behaviour by giving them what they want, and second, this process could take a very long time.

Quite honestly they will get where they need to be faster when they come to realise that free people in free countries are not going to stop saying what they want (trollish or otherwise) because they throw a fit. Let them riot in the street every day for the next ten years if need be. Eventually they will figure it out.

Do you have any clue how falsely self-righteous you are being?

[Uncle Sparky]

Back in the good old gays? You mean, old actors that are gay?

Old (or deceased) gay actors in westerns like Giant, Bend in the River and The Last Sunset, to name three.

[Wezil]

Do you have any clue how falsely self-righteous you are being?

How about those Facebook shares Kid? Isn't that a shocker?

[Kidlicious]

How about those Facebook shares Kid? Isn't that a shocker?

What? My sig?

[Wezil]

What? My sig?

Nope, just trying to find something casual and meaningless to say to you. But since you insist on trying to get into this debate despite demonstrating you really don't understand my position...

I told you before my thoughts on debating with you but apparently you have forgotten. With all the love in the world, I think you are broken. God bless you, you aren't nasty and hateful like the other severely broken poster on the site, but you just aren't right. I do not debate with people that just aren't right. Sorry.

[Kidlicious]

Nope, just trying to find something casual and meaningless to say to you. But since you insist on trying to get into this debate despite demonstrating you really don't understand my position...

I told you before my thoughts on debating with you but apparently you have forgotten. With all the love in the world, I think you are broken. God bless you, you aren't nasty and hateful like the other severely broken poster on the site, but you just aren't right. I do not debate with people that just aren't right. Sorry.

I understand your position just fine. Some one created a film, the only reason being to lie about someone's religious leader. To top it off there are insane fanatic followers in this religion who are to be greatly offended and may kill innocent people. But you defend this person's behaviour because you think that it will teach your enemies that you are morally superior to them.

Are you done trolling yet?

[Wezil]

"Where are you going? Why don't you walk the wheel with us? What is the matter my American friend? What has upset you? Oh! I know. The bad machine doesn't know that he's a bad machine. You still don't believe it. You still don't believe you're a bad machine? To know yourself is to know God, my friend. The factory knows, that's why they put you here. You'll see... You'll find out... In time, you'll know. "

[Elok]

Not gonna quote the whole block, this is in response to post 291 by Wezil:

First, nobody's said anything about taking action to muzzle anybody. People like whatiscopt will continue to have the right to be jerks; I insist on the right to consider people like him jerks, and counterproductive. I (and, I think, Ken too) am only saying he's an ******* for starting trouble, not a criminal. My bad opinion of his behavior does not constitute censorship--if it did, your disapproval of my bad opinion would itself constitute censorship, aaaand it's turtles all the way down.

Second, if you think their whole society is going to warm up to our POV on free speech by repeatedly seeing it bite their prophet in the ass, I would suggest you are seriously misguided. Look at how the Libyans reacted to the killing of the ambassador--the people of Benghazi just drove the damn militias out of town. Why? Because we helped them waste Qaddafi, and the ambassador was well-known as a friend to their people. Meanwhile, the policy of harping on principle and expecting them to rapidly absorb our values while we scowl at them ain't done **** in Iraq or Afghanistan. You win people over by being nice to them--or at least showing a minimum of respect--not by treating them like garbage and expecting them to take it out of respect for values they never had. They have plenty of embassies to torch and, as long as they regard us as enemies who despise them they won't see any friends to turn to except the various Armies of the Mahdi and Brigades of Martyrs and all those other blaggards.

[Wezil]

You expect reasonableness from fanatics. That will happen the same day all the trolls go away.

You are free of course to consider him an ******* but I suspect you would have to label many people with the same brush as it is oh so easy to cause offence in this area. I quite frankly don't understand the "artistic pass". Yes, I understand intentions but an author is just as able to predict a violent reaction as a bad filmmaker yet he writes the book anyway which leads to the inevitable riots and killings. Leaving aside how this fits into the earlier argument about long term solutions (the fanatics don't make the distinction you do between art and troll) the predictable end result is still the same. It seems rather *******ish to me (by the standard you lay out) to accept the carnage as acceptable just so an author can entertain us..