Obviously this video was made to incite people. I've watched it and it was of horrible quality and the inflammatory statements about Islam and Mohammed were dubbed after.
I would like to talk about freedom of speech. Is there a limit? The obvious limits are yelling fire in a crowded theater, making false statements that could ruin someone's career or life, inciting a riot or encouraging illegal actions.
Did the film maker commit a crime?
I feel this goes both ways, and even with the Westboro Baptist Church, it's freedom of speech. As soon as we start arresting people for saying something we don't believe in, then they'll start arresting people for speaking bad about the government.
"I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
What are your views on this?
__________________
(VZW) Galaxy Nexus. Nexus 7.
& Casio G'zOne Commando - I just use this as a game system and waterproof camera
After a game, if someone is standing on top a police car yelling "kill the police" that's inciting the riot. That is illegal, and isn't protected under freedom of speech
Funny I thought that a person was a subset of people.
Not sure where you learned your English Vocabulary but this is inaccurate. People is the pluralization of person. It is grammatically impossible for me to be people. A person can be smart. People are stupid.
Anyway, no one feels that their first amendment rights are threatened?
I mean, if the film producers are deemed guilty of a crime, then how far away will it be before it's a crime to speak up about the government? It's like the government hates the constitution.
Like? Apparently you have been blind to the laws they've been passing for the past couple of decades. They're not even doing it behind closed doors anymore since most citizens pay no attention.
BTW, I think the fact that Judge Napolitano and other news analysts being investigated by the DoJ for Sedition is a bigger threat to our 1st Amendment right than this stupid video.
Last edited by OstrichSaK; September 19th, 2012 at 12:59 PM.
Not sure where you learned your English Vocabulary but this is inaccurate. People is the pluralization of person. It is grammatically impossible for me to be people. A person can be smart. People are stupid.
Subset - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In mathematics, especially in set theory, a setA is a subset of a set B, or equivalently B is a superset of A, if A is "contained" inside B, that is, all elements of A are also elements of B. A and B may coincide. The relationship of one set being a subset of another is called inclusion or sometimes containment.
Subset - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In mathematics, especially in set theory, a setA is a subset of a set B, or equivalently B is a superset of A, if A is "contained" inside B, that is, all elements of A are also elements of B. A and B may coincide. The relationship of one set being a subset of another is called inclusion or sometimes containment.
It called supporting evidence. You did ask "learned your English Vocabulary".
Yes, it supports my side (that it's impossible for a single person to be people) so thanks for posting it. It's also ENTIRELY off topic as all of your posts end up being. If you want to discuss the topic the by all means, go for it. If you want to continue posting post after post proving how terrible your reading comprehension ("learned your English vocabulary" is not a question... it's a statement) is then just stop. All you're doing is digging the hole deeper and anyone who can read can see this.
You did make the statement "People are stupid", so defining people is relevant. Yes, when I quote, I copy the exact words. I didn't claim a person was a people, but claimed a person is a subset of people. Attacking someone is not addressing your claim that "People are stupid". Did you mean to claim that people you disagree with are stupid ?
You did make the statement "People are stupid", so defining people is relevant. Yes, when I quote, I copy the exact words. I didn't claim a person was a people, but claimed a person is a subset of people. Attacking someone is not addressing your claim that "People are stupid". Did you mean to claim that people you disagree with are stupid ?
To anyone else here with a sliver of reading comprehension the expression 'People are stupid' is pretty self explanatory. I'm not going to spend all day explaining simple expressions you don't understand because that's not the topic of this thread.
You did make the statement "People are stupid", so defining people is relevant. Yes, when I quote, I copy the exact words. I didn't claim a person was a people, but claimed a person is a subset of people. Attacking someone is not addressing your claim that "People are stupid". Did you mean to claim that people you disagree with are stupid ?
Oh just drop it, its pure semantics and is just taking up posts.
Oh just drop it, its pure semantics and is just taking up posts.
The title of this thread is "The Innocence of Muslims video". Muslims can be defined as people.
A poster has claimed People are stupid, a derogatory term. History has shown that once a group can be defined in derogatory terms, then extreme harm to said group can be rationalized.
The title of this thread is "The Innocence of Muslims video". Muslims can be defined as people.
A poster has claimed People are stupid, a derogatory term. History has shown that once a group can be defined in derogatory terms, then extreme harm to said group can be rationalized.
Semantics is important.
Now you're stretching and clearly are the epitome of one who overreacts for dramatic affect and attention. Welcome to my ignore list.
Well, I can understand why those who make decisions would easily get annoyed at any constitution, especially ones that are old and hard to change.
Like the US's 2nd amendment? The reason our founding fathers left that in there is in case the government got too out of hand. They definitely want that one removed.
Like the US's 2nd amendment? The reason our founding fathers left that in there is in case the government got too out of hand. They definitely want that one removed.
Exactly why there are so many restrictions and laws governing that right. Just keep tightening those and eventually you successfully eradicate the 2nd amendment. Then who cares about the 1st amendment or any of the rest for that matter because the government no longer fears the people.
Yes, there are those that are exercising their Freedom of Speech, but offensive even deceptive speech is protected. Doesn't mean offensive or deceptive speech can't be criticized.
The premise of Freedom of Speech is based on the means has not been concentrated into the hands of a few. With Google and the internet, this concentration is less than in the past.
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided
Thanks: 66
Thanked 968 Times in 703 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by OutofDate1980
The title of this thread is "The Innocence of Muslims video". Muslims can be defined as people.
A poster has claimed People are stupid, a derogatory term. History has shown that once a group can be defined in derogatory terms, then extreme harm to said group can be rationalized.
Semantics is important.
I don't think OstrichSak or anyone else is advocating the genocide of the entire human race or anything close to it. For the record, people are stupid.
Like? Apparently you have been blind to the laws they've been passing for the past couple of decades. They're not even doing it behind closed doors anymore since most citizens pay no attention.
BTW, I think the fact that Judge Napolitano and other news analysts being investigated by the DoJ for Sedition is a bigger threat to our 1st Amendment right than this stupid video.
Well, yeah, I've only noticed it the past 10 years.
Like the US's 2nd amendment? The reason our founding fathers left that in there is in case the government got too out of hand. They definitely want that one removed.
Here are three threads this year related to 2nd Amendment. Feel free to comment.
U.S. officials have said authorities are not investigating the film project itself and that even if it was inflammatory or led to violence, simply producing it cannot be considered a crime in the United States due to the nation's strong free speech laws.
But Nakoula, a Coptic Christian California man who pleaded guilty to bank fraud in 2010, was interviewed by federal probation officers on Saturday probing whether he violated the terms of his release while making the film.
Nakoula, who was released from prison in 2011, is prohibited from accessing the Web or assuming aliases without the approval of his probation officer, court records show. Violations could result in him being sent back to prison.
Nakoula, 55, did not return to his house in the Los Angeles suburb of Cerritos following his interview, and his whereabouts are unknown. Last week, he denied involvement in the film in a phone call to his Coptic bishop in Los Angeles.
Garcia, asked if a longer version of the film exists, told reporters outside court before the hearing that she did not believe the movie was ever finished.
"There is no entire movie, there's only that clip," she said.
is anything in the film/trailer (because thats all it really is) inaccurate or unfactual?
my understanding is they are just mad because they dont want everyone to know the truth about what kind of person their 'messiah' really was
That he was a smart albeit delusional guy who was used to further the goals of an elite? Sounds like Jesus.
And at least Muslims don't have the audacity to claim Muhammad or Jesus are the sons of god.
I dunno.... they did have the audacity to dance and parade in the streets on September 11, 2001. I know not every Muslim was happy or cheering about 2,000+ innocent civilians dying that day, but I didn't see any other ethnic group happy about it.
Edit: I'm not some super (fake) patriotic American. I mean, there was cause and effect that led up to America getting attacked.
It's just you don't see that kind of response from any other group of people. Burn a bible - 0 deaths. Burn a quran - jihad against the western world.
Last edited by jova33; September 21st, 2012 at 07:08 PM.
That he was a smart albeit delusional guy who was used to further the goals of an elite? Sounds like Jesus.
And at least Muslims don't have the audacity to claim Muhammad or Jesus are the sons of god.
admittedly I dont know a whole lot about the religion... and I certainly havent seen the 'trailer'
but again my understanding is that it highlights some of the facts as taken directly from the koran as well as history..... as I recall wasnt there something said about him beating his 6 YEAR OLD wife for something
perhaps thats what they are embarrassed about?
I have to believe its that they dont want to be reminded of the truth about their 'messiah' or want anyone else to learn of it for that matter
Not sure where you learned your English Vocabulary but this is inaccurate. People is the pluralization of person. It is grammatically impossible for me to be people. A person can be smart. People are stupid.
Perhaps "some people are stupid" is a tad more accurate?
I agree . . . some people are stupid. I have done certain things often characterized as "stupid." I am a person and part of the people. But I not be stoopid.
stu·pid
1. lacking ordinary quickness and keenness of mind; dull.
2. characterized by or proceeding from mental dullness; foolish; senseless: a stupid question.
3. tediously dull, especially due to lack of meaning or sense; inane; pointless: a stupid party.
4. annoying or irritating; troublesome: Turn off that stupid radio.
5. in a state of stupor; stupefied: stupid from fatigue.
The Innocence of Muslims video
