The Tanoubliette: Pussy Hurt and Delusions or TTPHAD for short.

Fana: "if there's no inherent respect then why do you not want people to draw muhammed why do you care at all? and by respect I mean the same way the mafia gains 'respect'."

I've already answered that, like, a thousand times. Because intentionally antagonizing and mocking people is never productive. You haven't answered my question, though: Are you going to eat the shit sandwich?




Quaid: "Who made you the arbiter of intent? Why do you get to decide when an actor's motivations are only to 'be an asshole'? What evidence do you have of this assertion?

Furthermore, if the intent of the provocation was to expose an intolerance (even an intolerance of 'being an asshole', according to you) and it succeeded, who are you to say said provocation was either 'negative' or 'pointless'?"

I am a rational person capable of observing actions and making inferences based on context and circumstances, just like you. While Occam's Razor is not always right (see: Zimmerman), it tends to be a pretty good go-to until further evidence presents itself that demonstrates otherwise.

The "draw Mohammed" contest did not expose an intolerance. We already knew about the intolerance, and that intolerance was the driving force behind the contest. Are you saying it was productive to further stoke the flames of hatred and increase conflict? Seems both negative and pointless to me, but I'd like to see how you think it helped the situation in any way. Are the Muslim extremists any closer to becoming tolerant of those with differing beliefs because of the contest?

Dr. Mario: "Hey Tanoomba answer me a couple questions here.

If Muslims weren't willing to murder people for cartoons, would you have anything to way about this at all? Would you recommend people still not draw them? What's the line for "things that are important enough to defy terrorist death threats"? Obviously you think cartoons aren't important enough so where's the point that someone would say "I'll kill you if you do this" and you do it anyways?"

If Muslims weren't willing to murder people for cartoons, would people who would otherwise have never drawn said cartoons gone out of their way to draw them? The distinction between acting or not acting based on death threats is being made by you, not me. I'm just saying that it's a good rule of thumb not to intentionally piss people off just because your right to do so is protected by the constitution.

Quaid_sl said:

I see the furthering of the conversation and awareness surrounding international and domestic Islamist/theistic extremism as intrinsically important. In fact, I think it's one of the most important issues of our time.

This furthered the conversation and increased awareness, thus had value. Even if it didn't have value of intent, all expression has inherent worth, and should never be silenced through force, unless that speech itself is inciting force.

This is pretty basic stuff man.

Click to expand...

But "Try not to act like an asshole and the world will be a better place" is not basic stuff? Come on, dude, you're reaching here.

I do appreciate that you agree that Sarkeesian's criticisms hold value, though. I don't think everyone else would be as quick to acknowledge that, so thank you.

Fana: "thanks for answering that you are respecting islam because you fear violence."

Never happened. Thanks for playing.

Fana: "do something i'm not supposed to? I do it all the time sometimes solely to affirm my lack of constraint by those whom I don't recognise authority."

How's that shit sandwich taste? Like freedom?



Quaid: "All speech has value, Tan. Even if its sole value is to be publicly ridiculed and smashed on the jagged rocks of history's failed ideas."

What the fuck kind of zen bullshit is this? I go up to a stranger on the street and say "Your mother loves it when I make her bleed from the vagina", and according to you this has value because it highlights something or other.

If you're going to use "value" to encompass both positive and negative outcomes, you've missed the point. If we want to be productive human beings who work together to try to make the world a better place, we are not going to do that by antagonizing each other and intentionally pissing each other off. That's a fucking guarantee. (And yes, we're also not going to do that by killing people who draw cartoons we don't like. But guess what? We can't take responsibility for other people's actions.)

Cad: "I think you are taking this "we are neutral in all disputes and just want to be friends with everyone" thing a little too far. I know you probably think we take the "America, fuck yea!" thing too far also, and thats fair. But to apologize for muslims, of all people? I get where you're coming from, but you need to understand who you are excusing from their behavior."

Nobody apologized for Muslims. Nobody excused extremists from their behavior.

False equivalences FUCKING EVERYWHERE.

Quaid: "'Productive human beings making the world better'. Heh.

'Better' for who? Whose idea of 'better' is the one we're going for here?"

Umm... Everyone's?

'Just don't piss anyone off and then nobody will have a reason to fight'.

How about just: "Don't go out of your way to piss people off." How about that, Quaid? Is that such a ka-razy suggestion?

'He drew something offensive so their reaction can be expected'.

Nice straw man.

'She was wearing a short skirt so she was asking for it'."

Again, never said this or anything close to it.

Fana: "yes actually, if something pissed you off you're saying you wouldn't take a moment to express that?"

That's not what I said. Read my statement again, please.



Quaid: "Your whole position on this topic is that of a murder apologist, which is very similar to that of a victim blaming rape apologist. But no, I suppose you never explicitly said that.

It is not the responsibility of a non-violent provocateur to curtail his freedom as a means of preventing his own murder. That would be on the murderer. This is basic morality.

This is a non-discussion. Your 'just be nice' philosophy is flawed and juvenile."

No, my position is most definitely NOT that of a "murder apologist". I have never once even remotely suggested or implied that the actions of murderers were justified in any way. In fact, I have explicitly stated otherwise many times.

I also never suggested anybody curtail their freedom. All I suggested was not going out of your way to piss someone off. There is a huge, huge difference between giving up something you regularly do and simply continuing to not do something you were never going to do anyway.

So far you have only addressed points I haven't made. Your 'If we don't do something we never had any intention of doing, the terrorists win' philosophy is flawed and juvenile.

Fanaskin has eaten the shit sandwich to prove his point. What about you, Quaid? Would you eat a shit sandwich just because someone threatened to kill you for doing so?