1240: God & Guns

[tuffa]

Originally Posted by Keith

That article you quoted was so stupid and unreadable I give a shit.

i posted something that was sorta funny and relevant to the show and then i made a civil point against something you said. sorry it was difficult for you to read.

[ragingindie]

Thanks Tuffa, i needed a bigger asshole to swoop in and save me.

[doctorsleep]

one more story about Lidsay lohan or paris hilton or any of these fucking celebrities (I really want to use another certain C-word but I don't want to make anyone mad)

But One more story and I am just going to move to Hollywood and run for judge under a platform of maximum penalties for celebrities. I wont be reasonable, I wont offer deals, fuck them all, let them rot in jail.

I'm not a hundred percent on exactly what the limits of a judge can do is but can I give the death penalty for someones 8th DUI

[Keith]

Originally Posted by tuffa

am i wrong that keith has a problem with hypersensitivity when it comes to his opinions on that gay dude but doesn't have a problem with hypersensitivity from mosque-protesters?

No, this was stupid as well.

[DWarrior]

Originally Posted by Keith

Now you know. People are gonna think you care when you do things. Even when you say you don't.

Right, DWarrior? This fuckin guy... You care about what he said and all of a sudden you cared too much.

I'M SORRY! I CARE!

No, you didn't care too much. My post in 1238 was deliberately abrasive because I've read way too many anti-mosque arguments and I think most of them are ridiculous. I'm not trying to lawyer you on the issue, if I see an argument from the other side that makes sense to me, I'll agree. For example, if they don't disclose sources of funds, or if it turns out they're getting funded in a shady way, then I'll be against it. I've also agreed to disagree in matters where the arguments came down to personal feeling that I thought was valid, but this issue has not been the case so far.

If that makes me a hardon (not sure what that even means) or makes you dislike me, then I can live with that. Hopefully you'll change your mind, but if not, I can still like the show.

[tuffa]

Originally Posted by Keith

No, this was stupid as well.

it's so funny when keith does this to someone else but it's truly infuriating when you're the victim. can't figure any response that doesn't sound smarmy or haughty or butt-hurt. i was trying to engage in a discussion but i'm being drawn into a flamewar.

here's my attempt.

keith, that's not a nice way to respond to criticism. i didn't attack you. i pointed out what i saw as a flaw in your argument. you respond by calling my statements 'stupid'. i know i'm not stupid and i'm decent at critical thinking. i'm capable of having a bad idea but probably the two that i put forward earlier this evening were not my stupidest ever. it would be great if you would come around and respond like an adult, but i won't expect it and i'll remember this isn't a place for thinking out loud or hashing out ideas in the future. it's a shame you want to pull the level of discourse that far down so quickly.

[DaveNJ]

Originally Posted by tuffa

hey i just listened to the show. chemda was wondering why companies would associate themselves with people from jersey shore. well take a look at this.

New marketing trend: "Unbranding" - Boing Boing

"Simon Doonan at New York Observer says that celebrity swag has become anti-swag in the case of some downmarket sub-lebrities. Using Jersey Shore's Snooki as an example, Doonan says that luxury houses are allegedly sending out competitors' products to keep their own brands from being associated with people in the news who don't match their brands' carefully-crafted images. Sounds as if Mary Bale is going to have a new wardrobe next week!"

also, i disagree with keith about the mosque. and i think the argument about people wanting to draw mohammed being hypocritical is wrong. the correct side of both the mosque debate and the depiction of mohammed debate is the side of first amendment freedom of expression. that is an american value we should recognize as such.

am i wrong that keith has a problem with hypersensitivity when it comes to his opinions on that gay dude but doesn't have a problem with hypersensitivity from mosque-protesters?

Go kick it with Dr. Laura, then.

Freedom of expression does not mean freedom from consequences. The debate is not over the legality of drawing Muhammad or building a mosque on private land.

One can recognize that building a mosque near Ground Zero is perfectly legal, and well within one's rights, but that it is also going to offend some of the people directly affected by 9/11.

Now, one is allowed to not care how their construction process hurts the feelings of others, in the same way that one is allowed to not care how their speech or drawings hurt the feelings of others.

That is one's right as an American.

However, it isn't a right that we MUST exercise. We can choose to hold ourselves to higher standards of conscientiousness, regulating our behavior within certain limits so as to enrich the lives of those around us.

And with our rights to free expression we can criticize those who don't.

[tuffa]

Originally Posted by DaveNJ

Go kick it with Dr. Laura, then.

Freedom of expression does not mean freedom from consequences. The debate is not over the legality of drawing Muhammad or building a mosque on private land.

One can recognize that building a mosque near Ground Zero is perfectly legal, and well within one's rights, but that it is also going to offend some of the people directly affected by 9/11.

Now, one is allowed to not care how their construction process hurts the feelings of others, in the same way that one is allowed to not care how their speech or drawings hurt the feelings of others.

That is one's right as an American.

However, it isn't a right that we MUST exercise. We can choose to hold ourselves to higher standards of conscientiousness, regulating our behavior within certain limits so as to enrich the lives of those around us.

And with our rights to free expression we can criticize those who don't.

you're right about it not being a legal issue. i was more thinking about consistency, and it makes sense to me that someone would be for depicting mohammed and building the mosque. i think both of those positions are most in line with tolerating multiple religious and anti-religious perspectives. and i think religious and philosophical inclusiveness are important as American ideals. i'm not a huge fan of any religion, islam included, but i don't associate the wtc attacks with all of islam. i can respect the victims' feelings but i think victims who oppose this mosque are being irrational and maybe a little bigoted. and i worry that a lot of the criticism is coming not from victims but from political opportunists (i.e. palin).

[DaveNJ]

Originally Posted by tuffa

you're right about it not being a legal issue. i was more thinking about consistency, and it makes sense to me that someone would be for depicting mohammed and building the mosque. i think both of those positions are most in line with tolerating multiple religious and anti-religious perspectives. and i think religious and philosophical inclusiveness are important as American ideals. i'm not a huge fan of any religion, islam included, but i don't associate the wtc attacks with all of islam. i can respect the victims' feelings but i think victims who oppose this mosque are being irrational and maybe a little bigoted. and i worry that a lot of the criticism is coming not from victims but from political opportunists (i.e. palin).

But one can tolerate various perspectives and still understand how their actions affect others.

The argument against Muhammad cartoons (which Keith has also made) is simple: depictions of Muhammad are rarely, if ever, artistically necessary, and one knows when one draws him that they are going to make a lot of people feel bad. They must then assess the importance of their work in light of the way it will make people feel, and potentially rework it so as to do less harm.

The same is true of the mosque in lower Manhattan. It has every right to be built there, but some of the victims will feel bad about it.

Some of the feelings are irrational, yes, or at least influenced heavily by emotion. However, they're still there, and they need to be accounted for.

I think there's plenty on either side of the debate here, but ultimately this isn't a rights issue. The rights here are clear, well-defined, and immutable. If the mosque moves it won't be a result of legal processes, because their rights are completely protected, and should be.

How one uses one's rights is not subject to protection from debate, though. Dr. Laura was wrong. Not because she went beyond her rights, but because she said something that she didn't need to say that caused emotional harm to a lot of people. That principle applies elsewhere.

[Jo_Culprit]

Originally Posted by Keith

How dare you. I built two massive porches, shelving... how dare you. I can't even with you.

You shame me High Commander!



My comments were out of line and I apologise Sir!

I will punish myself severely for this greivous act of disrespect Sir!
200 lashes and half rations for a month.

Please forgive my insubordination Sir!


If I may quote the Archives of Malley and Melnic

"Through Keith we will find enternal justice, through diligence we will serve Keith!"

I should've known better then to question the High Commanders capabilities, for I now realise you would not be High Commander if such abilities were ever in question.


Bound by Justice
- Keith-Fu Division Officer J.Culprit