Nerds. Nerds EVERYWHERE...

[John D]

Where is the line between victim-blaming and partial responsibility due to known avoidability?

When Thunderf00t argued that the extreme form of "no victim-blaming!" was preventing people from giving good advice on how to avoid being raped, I agreed with him and even went so far as to wonder if some people actually want undergrad women to be raped, just to help their cause. I could not explain their extreme rejection of giving good advice in any other way. We tell people to lock their doors, etc, but we aren't allowed to give anything like that advice for rape. It seems crazy.

If I were to say that one can reduce the odds of being killed from Muslim nut-jobs by not publishing certain cartoons, which side of the line would I be on? Or is this a case of the bodies not being cold enough to even ask this question?

A big difference to me is that there are NO organized groups, religious or otherwise, who condone rape. If they exist they are soundly thrashed, vilified, and rejected. We recognize as a society that rape is WRONG! (well... except for in some Muslim countries)

However, most Muslim religious leaders teach that death is the correct punishment for drawing pictures of the prophet. This is equivalent to the Pope saying someone should be killed for drawing pictures of Jesus. A recent pole of Muslims living in the US shows that 1 in 8 agree that death is the correct punishment for blasphemy.... and this is in the US!

I think we are better served to stand up to this barbarity in this case. We will not satisfy Muslim leaders by accepting their rules. They will just keep asking for more and more and more. I think we need to find the Muslims who are brave enough to say "Death is NOT a just punishment" and we need to promote them as the "true" Muslims. This gives space for more Muslims to become safer moderates.

[comhcinc]

I see what you are saying but I see a big difference in telling people to be careful of sexual predators by taking simple common sense precautions that also btw will keep you from getting robbed or bust by the cops as well, and telling people to curtail their rights because otherwise they may be killed.

If it's a big difference, can you express it in words?

http://cdn0.dailydot.com/uploaded/image ... /face2.gif

[Lsuoma]

Sorry, first double post. In my defence the pit went all weird on me, I got a 404, honest!!! :?

Don't believe you - it was a 503, prolly.

[deLurch]

If I were to say that one can reduce the odds of being killed from Muslim nut-jobs by not publishing certain cartoons, which side of the line would I be on? Or is this a case of the bodies not being cold enough to even ask this question?

Bodies are not even buried yet. More people died this morning during the man hunt. I am not saying that it isn't worthy of discussion. But I suspect the don't publish "certain" cartoon argument is going to go south extremely fast.

[JacquesCuze]

When you or I click on a tweet at the twitter website, what do you think you should see in terms of that tweet's parents and children?

I made several tweets to the EFF today regarding an essay of theirs about online harassment



And now when I click on that link, there are many many of my tweets that are no longer displayed (though they were displayed earlier). If I were conspiracy minded, I would say specifically that my tweets to the EFF stating my view that Rebecca Watson is a harasser are no longer displayed in the default display for that EFF tweet, though I can see them in my own twitter history.

So why would I not be seeing those tweets?

1. Standard twitter behavior?
2. Silenced by action by Twitter Personnel?
3. Silenced by action by EFF Personnel?
4. Other?

What I see:

http://i.imgur.com/yw8oOPK.png

What I don't see:


http://i.imgur.com/G1To89Z.png

also


http://i.imgur.com/uOsxedn.png

[Billie from Ockham]

A big difference to me is that there are NO organized groups, religious or otherwise, who condone rape. If they exist they are soundly thrashed, vilified, and rejected. We recognize as a society that rape is WRONG! (well... except for in some Muslim countries)

OK, that makes some sense to me, in contrast to the ASL gif and the strawman, above. But that doesn't help me to understand why it is OK to tell people to lock their doors but not OK to tell them to avoid drinking alone at a party. Burglars are like rapists, in that they also have no organization or public support.

[Kirbmarc]

If no one of your faggots do it, I'll do it later. I'll just set a proxy first, as a safety measure against doxxing

I've done it. Let them dox me, there's no real sensible data about me on the Internet. Even if by any chance they'll contact my employer he'll laugh at their faces.

[Shatterface as Guest]

Where is the line between victim-blaming and partial responsibility due to known avoidability?

When Thunderf00t argued that the extreme form of "no victim-blaming!" was preventing people from giving good advice on how to avoid being raped, I agreed with him and even went so far as to wonder if some people actually want undergrad women to be raped, just to help their cause. I could not explain their extreme rejection of giving good advice in any other way. We tell people to lock their doors, etc, but we aren't allowed to give anything like that advice for rape. It seems crazy.

If I were to say that one can reduce the odds of being killed from Muslim nut-jobs by not publishing certain cartoons, which side of the line would I be on? Or is this a case of the bodies not being cold enough to even ask this question?

I think the difference is that when we advise women to be careful that's because, contrary to what some feminists think, we dont want them to come to harm, whereas those criticising Charlie Hebdo do seem to think a bunch of 'racist' got what was coming to them.

Shatterface

[Billie from Ockham]

If I were to say that one can reduce the odds of being killed from Muslim nut-jobs by not publishing certain cartoons, which side of the line would I be on? Or is this a case of the bodies not being cold enough to even ask this question?

Bodies are not even buried yet. More people died this morning during the man hunt. I am not saying that it isn't worthy of discussion. But I suspect the don't publish "certain" cartoon argument is going to go south extremely fast.

While it might be too soon, so maybe I should drop it, but I need to say that I was not headed towards telling anyone not to publish certain cartoons. At most, I was headed towards suggesting that, assuming that you know that publishing certain cartoons is risky, paralleling knowing that leaving your car unlocked is risky and getting drunk alone at a frat-party is risky, what is the correct label for the "responsibility" that this imposes on the actor? Maybe what I'm searching for is simply a new word.

[TiBo]

Somewhere on FTB I read this ... or imagined to have read this ... or expected to read this:

"Thank God that we have a tragedy involving white french middle class people and a bunch of jews to drag us away from the depressing news about the villifcation of muslims in France. Boy, I hate to say it, but it sure was nice of these cartoonists and their serfs to get themselves killed to create such a spectacular distraction."

PSA:
If you feel the irresistable desire to denounce the victims of a murder in the same sentence as the murderers, you may be the leftist scum of the earth.

[comhcinc]

If I were to say that one can reduce the odds of being killed from Muslim nut-jobs by not publishing certain cartoons, which side of the line would I be on? Or is this a case of the bodies not being cold enough to even ask this question?

Bodies are not even buried yet. More people died this morning during the man hunt. I am not saying that it isn't worthy of discussion. But I suspect the don't publish "certain" cartoon argument is going to go south extremely fast.

While it might be too soon, so maybe I should drop it, but I need to say that I was not headed towards telling anyone not to publish certain cartoons. At most, I was headed towards suggesting that, assuming that you know that publishing certain cartoons is risky, paralleling knowing that leaving your car unlocked is risky and getting drunk alone at a frat-party is risky, what is the correct label for the "responsibility" that this imposes on the actor? Maybe what I'm searching for is simply a new word.

Bravery may be the word you are looking for. They knew the risk. They have been attacked before and there was a police presents.

[Really?]

If no one of your faggots do it, I'll do it later. I'll just set a proxy first, as a safety measure against doxxing

I've done it. Let them dox me, there's no real sensible data about me on the Internet. Even if by any chance they'll contact my employer he'll laugh at their faces.

https://archive.today/SgA8m

http://i.imgur.com/blc0gp2.jpg

[John D]

A big difference to me is that there are NO organized groups, religious or otherwise, who condone rape. If they exist they are soundly thrashed, vilified, and rejected. We recognize as a society that rape is WRONG! (well... except for in some Muslim countries)

OK, that makes some sense to me, in contrast to the ASL gif and the strawman, above. But that doesn't help me to understand why it is OK to tell people to lock their doors but not OK to tell them to avoid drinking alone at a party. Burglars are like rapists, in that they also have no organization or public support.

I always tell my girls to not drink alone at a party... always go with a friend. But then, I am a reasonable man and a responsible father. I know, that despite our best efforts to stop rape, there are still rapists. Until we figure out how to eliminate the threat of rape then practical people take some reasonable precautions.

[Really?]

Fucking LOL.

http://i.imgur.com/KWrcHUZ.jpg

[Really?]

http://i.imgur.com/3G6g5zw.jpg

[free thoughtpolice]

This fucking liar is saying that the staff at Charlie Hebdo aren't vile racists and are actually liberals and good people! We need to get Giliell and friends to educate him:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30726180

[Shatterface as Guest]

Fucking LOL.

http://i.imgur.com/KWrcHUZ.jpg

The icing on the cake would be Peezus calling you an Islamophobe.

Shatterface

[Billie from Ockham]

Absolutely, John. Teach your kids about all risks (as long as you do it in a way that doesn't create paralysis or paranoia, as I've seen in some home-schooled kids when they reach college). But I'm more interested in the reactions of people to the giving of advice. No-one bats an eye at the suggestion to lock doors, but people freak out when you give advice on rape-avoidance or mention that pissing off crazy religious people is risky - these are "victim-blaming" actions.

Maybe it's the ratio of the advice to the principle. Free speech and freedom of movement and association are both very high, while the "right" to not have to spend three seconds locking a door is not high at all. Therefore, suggestions about the former two are different from the last.

[comhcinc]

Until we figure out how to eliminate the threat of rape then practical people take some reasonable precautions.

[Dave]

Where is the line between victim-blaming and partial responsibility due to known avoidability?

When Thunderf00t argued that the extreme form of "no victim-blaming!" was preventing people from giving good advice on how to avoid being raped, I agreed with him and even went so far as to wonder if some people actually want undergrad women to be raped, just to help their cause. I could not explain their extreme rejection of giving good advice in any other way. We tell people to lock their doors, etc, but we aren't allowed to give anything like that advice for rape. It seems crazy.

If I were to say that one can reduce the odds of being killed from Muslim nut-jobs by not publishing certain cartoons, which side of the line would I be on? Or is this a case of the bodies not being cold enough to even ask this question?

From my perspective, its about knowing and accepting your risks. Saying if you want to reduce the risk of rape, here are some of the things you can do, is not saying, DO NOT EVER, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES DO THESE THINGS. Go ahead if you want and walk down a back alley drunk off your ass at 3 in the morning with your tits hanging out, and if you get raped, its still your rapists fault and he/she/it deserves to get nailed to the wall, but you should realize what you are opening yourself up to.

Similarly, I have no doubts that the staff at Charlie Hebdo knew that their risk of being attacked by muslim-nutjobs was higher than that of the average frenchie. They accepted that risk because they thought it was worth it. They took additional precautions because they were at higher risk (ex Charb had a bodyguard.)

So if you "were to say that one can reduce the odds of being killed from Muslim nut-jobs by not publishing certain cartoons," you would be on the side of stating the bleeding obvious, otherwise known as the tedious bores.

[Kirbmarc]

Some answers to my post which contains the Holy Peezus' words:

kolnnauzer@286,
Perhaps you are unaware of how Anglicanism came to be? Namely, Henry VIII wanted to divorce his wife and the Pope wouldn’t let him? Lovely reason to start a religion.
I’m also guessing that you are unaware of the brutal suppression of Catholicism under the Anglicans (which gave us Guy Fawkes and the notorious Guy Fawkes mask, oddly enough.)
Anglicans may have had their claws trimmed, but make no mistake, they could be just as brutal as any other religion in their time.

True but irrelevant to the topic nowadays.

kolnnauzer #286:
But I would still say that Islam as a religion is nastier and more barbaric than, say, Anglicanism.
I take it you’re not Ugandan?

I'm not. Neither is Peezus. And the split within the Anglican church over gay rights is nowhere near as bad, from a liberal perspective, as what the Muslims teach and do.

No angry replies from the known perpetually angry posters so far.

[Shatterface as Guest]

http://i.imgur.com/3G6g5zw.jpg

Newton killed people too.

Fuckin' calculus.

Shatterface

[Eskarina]

If I were to say that one can reduce the odds of being killed from Muslim nut-jobs by not publishing certain cartoons, which side of the line would I be on? Or is this a case of the bodies not being cold enough to even ask this question?

Bodies are not even buried yet. More people died this morning during the man hunt. I am not saying that it isn't worthy of discussion. But I suspect the don't publish "certain" cartoon argument is going to go south extremely fast.

While it might be too soon, so maybe I should drop it, but I need to say that I was not headed towards telling anyone not to publish certain cartoons. At most, I was headed towards suggesting that, assuming that you know that publishing certain cartoons is risky, paralleling knowing that leaving your car unlocked is risky and getting drunk alone at a frat-party is risky, what is the correct label for the "responsibility" that this imposes on the actor? Maybe what I'm searching for is simply a new word.

Both those examples are not basic human rights, whereas freedom of speech is.

[Oglebart]

Sorry, first double post. In my defence the pit went all weird on me, I got a 404, honest!!! :?

Don't believe you - it was a 503, prolly.

Oh, yes I think you're right. Oh well, you know what it's like, they all look the same that lot :techie-error:

[Git]

so I'm listening to radio 4 and who come on chatting about cancer....PZMyers that's fucking who.
I didn't realise he was a leading light in the genetics of cancer and probabilities the probabilities etc.. learn something new every day.

Why the fuck would they ask him to speak about cancer?

He's never researched it and is certainly no expert. He gets a lot pf details wrong whenever he writes about it on his blog and I'm pretty sure he has never used it as a subject for one of his conference talks (because he knows he'd be in danger of a rel scientist asking him an awkward question.
Perhaps the radio4 idiot just spotted that Myers had written a crappy article criticising the recent paper about cancer probabilities.
Why didn't they get a real expert who knows what she or he is talking about?

Its the BBC. The House TV Channel of the Guardian.

What the fuck did you expect from the BBC?

[Billie from Ockham]

Thanks for the reply. I want to explore this, as it's what has me confused:

Go ahead if you want and walk down a back alley drunk off your ass at 3 in the morning with your tits hanging out, and if you get raped, its still your rapists fault and he/she/it deserves to get nailed to the wall, but you should realize what you are opening yourself up to.

When you write "opening yourself up to" (with which I completely agree), are you also saying "partially responsible"? That seems to be the key issue: how do you give advice (or state the obvious, as you said later) without shifting blame? Or does some blame actually get shifted?

[Git]

I'm sure of it. But then I think pretty much all SJWism is a troll, regardless of the sincerity. And with what's coming out France and the complete and utter horse shit both extremes of the social-alignment liberal/conservative dichotomy are spewing to exploit their fuck-wittary, I think I could use some gallows humor.

The bright side of the hostage standoff in France at the Kosher supermarket is that it will make it more obvious to many how the Jews are responsible.

+1. Exactly. They probably hired them as part of a Zionist conspiracy to blacken the reputations of Muslims. I bet Git is in on it... ;)

Damn it. Busted.

[Kirbmarc]

Does anyone has other quotes from PZ Myers about the evils of Islam?

[Really?]

I am posting these in case PZ memory holes the responses "he" got.

http://i.imgur.com/3ag33zF.jpg

[SkepticalCat]

I thought this was a really good commentary about the cartoon controversy; it made me re-think my position on the publishing of the cartoons:

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015 ... -cartoons/

I'd be interested to hear what other Slymepitters think.

[Really?]

Does anyone has other quotes from PZ Myers about the evils of Islam?

PZ lauded for taking on Islamic "science"

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/s ... clnk&gl=us

This one's good.
scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/04/23/ ... till-ruin/

That is genuinely disgraceful, that the idiots of Islam can rely on intimidation and fear to silence their critics. “Religion of Peace,” my ass; Islam is the religion of ignorance and hate. It seems entirely appropriate to turn things over to Pat Condell:

He’s a little too generous towards Islam at the end, though. Strip away the fear-mongering and hatred from Islam, and it would still be a religion of ignorance and delusions.

[Really?]

Does anyone has other quotes from PZ Myers about the evils of Islam?

More good material:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Talk:PZ_Myers#Islam_2

[Shatterface as Guest]

I am posting these in case PZ memory holes the responses "he" got.

http://i.imgur.com/3ag33zF.jpg

Except the Islamists who killed the cartoonists aren't in power.

France is a secular country.

In countries were Islamists are in charge they're murderously psychotic; and where they're not in power they're murderously psychotic.

Even where they are oppressed they're murderously psychotic.

Shatterface

[Kirbmarc]

Never mind, I found a few more.

[MacGruberKnows]

I'm glad WMD--Kitty has found some meds that seem to be working for her, at least she's not screaming at her keyboard:

WMDKitty -- Survivor
8 January 2015 at 10:26 pm
Racism? Bad.
Misogyny? Bad.
Perpetuating and promoting negative stereotypes? Bad.
No-holds-barred “we offend everyone” satire? Not inherently “good” or “bad”.
Poking fun at religion? Oh, come on, all the best comedians have done it.
Breaking religious taboos? Morally grey.
None of that could ever justify a violent response.
CH, for all their terribleness, was using their words and their pictures, and trying to provoke thought.
Sometimes I think the whole world needs to go back to preschool and kindergarten and relearn some social skills. What happened to “violence is not the answer”? What happened to “use your words?” Adults should be able to deal with things without coming to blows. (Or gunfire.)

That's what it's come to at pz's, wmdkitty is a voice of reason.

[Billie from Ockham]

I thought this was a really good commentary about the cartoon controversy; it made me re-think my position on the publishing of the cartoons:

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015 ... -cartoons/

I'd be interested to hear what other Slymepitters think.

I agree with his main point, even if it's rather obvious.

At the same time, I got a giggle when I read: "Central to free speech activism has always been the distinction between defending the right to disseminate Idea X and agreeing with Idea X, one which only the most simple-minded among us are incapable of comprehending." I immediately thought of the FtBer Giliell. Did GG really intend to smear Giliell so viciously?

[Dick Strawkins]

Never mind, I found a few more.

From Myers in 2010

I’ll be going to the Atheist Alliance International 2010 Copenhagen Convention to listen to a fine group of godless speakers, but there’s one who won’t be there — there was going to be a surprise speaker, not mentioned for security reasons, and now he has decided it would be too dangerous. The meeting is being held in Denmark, so of course they were going to have Kurt Westergaard, the cartoonist who infuriated so many Muslims, speak about his experience.

But not now. The threats and the risk are too great, and he has withdrawn.

That is genuinely disgraceful, that the idiots of Islam can rely on intimidation and fear to silence their critics. “Religion of Peace,” my ass; Islam is the religion of ignorance and hate. It seems entirely appropriate to turn things over to Pat Condell:

He’s a little too generous towards Islam at the end, though. Strip away the fear-mongering and hatred from Islam, and it would still be a religion of ignorance and delusions.

[Really?]

LOL

http://i.imgur.com/jtDri6l.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/VeKkgoh.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/MenJ0Q0.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/wK4FhFK.jpg

[ConcentratedH2O, OM]

A wonderful piece of radio, in which the host gently leads the caller from declaring that all Muslims should apologise for the Hebdo murders, to defending himself because he is part of "the Richard community". Lovely.

http://www.lbc.co.uk/james-obriens-mast ... ack-102995

[Oglebart]

Thanks for the reply. I want to explore this, as it's what has me confused:

Go ahead if you want and walk down a back alley drunk off your ass at 3 in the morning with your tits hanging out, and if you get raped, its still your rapists fault and he/she/it deserves to get nailed to the wall, but you should realize what you are opening yourself up to.

When you write "opening yourself up to" (with which I completely agree), are you also saying "partially responsible"? That seems to be the key issue: how do you give advice (or state the obvious, as you said later) without shifting blame? Or does some blame actually get shifted?

Forgive me for jumping in Dave, but what I see the "opening yourself up to" is of course risk. You can offer sensible advice and state that you may be placing yourself at more risk by your actions. Then it has to be a personal decision if that risk is worth it. Clearly Charb thought that his messages and right to express them were worth the risk to his personal safety. Unfortunately it's the fact that offence is taken in such huge amounts by the SJW's that make this an impossible discussion to have with them.

[Kirbmarc]

Tony! The Queer Shop doesn't particularly like Myers' ideas, either:

All religions are damnably bad. Too many people look around the world (or at their tv’s) and see the Islamic extremists, but what about the extremists of other religions? They exist. There are homegrown right-wing fundie Christian extremists in the U.S. who are more than willing to engage in acts of violence to achieve their goals. There are also Hindu and Sikh extremists. Islam doesn’t have the market cornered on religious extremists. I think it’s a bad idea to walk down the road of “Islam is the biggest bad of all the religions”, bc too often it leads to people ignoring the harms done in the name of other religions .
Plus, many times, when people talk about the harm done by militant extremists Islamists, the focus is on the death and destruction they cause. Other religions are responsible for death and destruction as well. And where there isn’t death and destruction, there’s often human suffering. Look at the Catholic Church’s history of child sex abuse or their opposition to abortion which causes women around the world to suffer. While the children and women who suffered are (in many cases) still living, the harm done to them cannot be easily measured. Nor is there an easy way to compare that harm to the harm done by militant Islamists.
Also, anti-Muslim bigotry often accompanies claims that “Islam is the worst of all the religions” (please note that I’m not accusing you of anti-Muslim bigotry-a term I prefer to Islamophobia).

[Git]

I thought this was a really good commentary about the cartoon controversy; it made me re-think my position on the publishing of the cartoons:

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015 ... -cartoons/

I'd be interested to hear what other Slymepitters think.

Greenwald's obsession with Israel and Jews is creepy.

But unsurprising if you know anything about him at all.

[Dick Strawkins]

Never mind, I found a few more.

From Myers in 2010

I’ll be going to the Atheist Alliance International 2010 Copenhagen Convention to listen to a fine group of godless speakers, but there’s one who won’t be there — there was going to be a surprise speaker, not mentioned for security reasons, and now he has decided it would be too dangerous. The meeting is being held in Denmark, so of course they were going to have Kurt Westergaard, the cartoonist who infuriated so many Muslims, speak about his experience.

But not now. The threats and the risk are too great, and he has withdrawn.

That is genuinely disgraceful, that the idiots of Islam can rely on intimidation and fear to silence their critics. “Religion of Peace,” my ass; Islam is the religion of ignorance and hate. It seems entirely appropriate to turn things over to Pat Condell:

He’s a little too generous towards Islam at the end, though. Strip away the fear-mongering and hatred from Islam, and it would still be a religion of ignorance and delusions.

From here

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010 ... till-ruin/

[Really?]

http://i.imgur.com/KqwoI8B.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/NLq6JvA.jpg

[Shatterface as Guest]

Ichthyic
9 January 2015 at 2:18 pm
Islam is the religion of ignorance and hate.
people are full of ignorance and hate.. or haven’t you been noticing that?
or are you so enmeshed in your own ignorance and hate you can’t even see it?

Christ, my fucking sides are bursting now.

They're laying into Peezus for ignorance and hate!

Oh please, let this ride as long as possible!

Shatterface

[free thoughtpolice]

Where is the line between victim-blaming and partial responsibility due to known avoidability?

When Thunderf00t argued that the extreme form of "no victim-blaming!" was preventing people from giving good advice on how to avoid being raped, I agreed with him and even went so far as to wonder if some people actually want undergrad women to be raped, just to help their cause. I could not explain their extreme rejection of giving good advice in any other way. We tell people to lock their doors, etc, but we aren't allowed to give anything like that advice for rape. It seems crazy.

If I were to say that one can reduce the odds of being killed from Muslim nut-jobs by not publishing certain cartoons, which side of the line would I be on? Or is this a case of the bodies not being cold enough to even ask this question?

There is a difference between recommending women (and men for that matter) to use caution when partying and telling them they shouldn't do it or they deserved to get raped.
Likewise, when satirizing Islamists there is a difference between warning the satirists about the danger of what they are doing and recommending security measures and telling them to not hurt people's feelings. The folks at CH did take security measures that unfortunately didn't protect them from these particular criminals.
Determined burglars can rob a house that has locked doors too, that doesn't mean you should make sure you never obtain possessions worth stealing or you are asking for it. However, you may want to think twice about leaving valuables in open sight in an unlocked car in the wrong part of town. At least until we can just tell thieves not to steal.

[Dave]

Thanks for the reply. I want to explore this, as it's what has me confused:

Go ahead if you want and walk down a back alley drunk off your ass at 3 in the morning with your tits hanging out, and if you get raped, its still your rapists fault and he/she/it deserves to get nailed to the wall, but you should realize what you are opening yourself up to.

When you write "opening yourself up to" (with which I completely agree), are you also saying "partially responsible"? That seems to be the key issue: how do you give advice (or state the obvious, as you said later) without shifting blame? Or does some blame actually get shifted?

Only in a microscopic sense, certainly not in a legal sense. We are all responsible for our own actions. If you pass out drunk in front of me with a wad of $100 bills hanging half out of your pocket, its still my choice to rob you or not. On the otherhand, Im still entitled, and justified, in considering you a dumbshit. Your choices in behavior have certainly increased the odds that you will be robbed, so I suppose, if we were apportion out responsibility to the 15th decimal place, you are slighly more responsible for the robbery than had you made other choices, yet your total responsibility is still orders of magnitude less than that of the jackass who robbed you. Legally, we simply dont parse responsibility to that level.

When I write "opening yourself to" I mean "increasing the risk of."

More later, have a call I need to make.

[Really?]

Is it sad that this is the happiest I've been since I was a child?

http://i.imgur.com/jfe8JIb.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/G1Gipj5.jpg

[Wild Zontargs]

I thought this was a really good commentary about the cartoon controversy; it made me re-think my position on the publishing of the cartoons:

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015 ... -cartoons/

I'd be interested to hear what other Slymepitters think.

“When you tear out a man's tongue, you are not proving him a liar, you're only telling the world that you fear what he might say.” ― George R.R. Martin

Print 'em all. If you can't survive having a cartoon printed about you, be ye a Muslim, a Jew, an Atheist, an American, an Israeli, or French, tough shit. Anyone who wants to whine "they're X-ists, they don't get to speak" can fuck right off. Either what they have to say is false, in which case prove them to be the ignorant assholes they are, or it's true, in which case: “That which can be destroyed by the truth should be.” ― P.C. Hodgell

[Billie from Ockham]

There is a difference between recommending women (and men for that matter) to use caution when partying and telling them they shouldn't do it or they deserved to get raped.

I'm aware of this. Are you not aware that even suggesting to some women that they use caution when partying (without any of the rest of what you wrote) will often be met with screams of "misogyny!"?

[Git]

This is hilarious, and almost Parsehole-esque in its deliciousness.

[ConcentratedH2O, OM]

Seriously, this will fuck you up. My record is around 30 seconds before I began to feel like my face was being pulled into the screen, into the void, into the infinity, into the madness, into the chaos, into Central Perk forever and ever.

I am scared and scarred.

Every episode of "Friends" sitcom played all at once. On the same screen.

[youtube]6MbJi0xtnEA[/youtube]

[Kirbmarc]

More from Tony! The Queer Shop:

“Religion of Peace,” my ass; Islam is the religion of ignorance and hate.

See, and this is where I start to wonder what biases and prejudices you have that lead you to think of Islam in this way. Islam is not the only religion with adherents who are hateful or ignorant. There are Christians who are hateful and ignorant. There are Christians who will use violence to achieve their goals. And just like Islam, there are those who condemn such horrible actions.
Islam has no unique claim to ignorance and hate. Stop trying to give it the World’s Worst Religion Award (or some warped version of Oppression Olympics), bc to do so, you have to ignore the harm done in the name of other religions

[rayshul]

I thought this was a really good commentary about the cartoon controversy; it made me re-think my position on the publishing of the cartoons:

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015 ... -cartoons/

I'd be interested to hear what other Slymepitters think.

Greenwald's obsession with Israel and Jews is creepy.

But unsurprising if you know anything about him at all.

Yeah, a little bit.

I still don't see a problem with the cartoons. I don't think every cartoon you read is something you need to politically agree with, or agree completely with, or you can use it to say... I see your point, but I don't agree. I think most of them are funny in a very black humor way - some shock-funny.

[Kirbmarc]

Are there more relevant Peezus quotes? (Possibly from a different post?)

[Really?]

http://i.imgur.com/7Mwwxth.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/nnRoK3G.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/QJJzyUu.jpg

[Pitchguest]

I thought this was a really good commentary about the cartoon controversy; it made me re-think my position on the publishing of the cartoons:

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015 ... -cartoons/

I'd be interested to hear what other Slymepitters think.

“When you tear out a man's tongue, you are not proving him a liar, you're only telling the world that you fear what he might say.” ― George R.R. Martin

Print 'em all. If you can't survive having a cartoon printed about you, be ye a Muslim, a Jew, an Atheist, an American, an Israeli, or French, tough shit. Anyone who wants to whine "they're X-ists, they don't get to speak" can fuck right off. Either what they have to say is false, in which case prove them to be the ignorant assholes they are, or it's true, in which case: “That which can be destroyed by the truth should be.” ― P.C. Hodgell

See, this is what I should have said, not ramble on like a loon. Well spoken, sir. :clap:

[Shatterface as Guest]

More from Tony! The Queer Shop:

“Religion of Peace,” my ass; Islam is the religion of ignorance and hate.

See, and this is where I start to wonder what biases and prejudices you have that lead you to think of Islam in this way. Islam is not the only religion with adherents who are hateful or ignorant. There are Christians who are hateful and ignorant. There are Christians who will use violence to achieve their goals. And just like Islam, there are those who condemn such horrible actions.
Islam has no unique claim to ignorance and hate. Stop trying to give it the World’s Worst Religion Award (or some warped version of Oppression Olympics), bc to do so, you have to ignore the harm done in the name of other religions

What's particularly sweet is Tony commented in the original thread the quotes were lifted from.

Shatterface

[Pitchguest]

Kirbmarc: More! I don't know what it is, but seeing PZ's own commentariat tear apart his own words makes me giddy. :lol:

[deLurch]

While it might be too soon, so maybe I should drop it, but I need to say that I was not headed towards telling anyone not to publish certain cartoons. At most, I was headed towards suggesting that, assuming that you know that publishing certain cartoons is risky, paralleling knowing that leaving your car unlocked is risky and getting drunk alone at a frat-party is risky, what is the correct label for the "responsibility" that this imposes on the actor? Maybe what I'm searching for is simply a new word.

Put a reminder on your calendar for a month from now, and we will delve into this discussion. Right now some people's emotions about the subject are a little too high for them to have a reasonable chat about it. The talk would derail too fast.