- 10,170
- 1,439
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?
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?