You are right. They had some responsibility for getting shot at.

BUT NOT BLAME!

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

and ikes joins the ever-growing list of posters who are very confused about what's actually under disagreement ITT

I am not sure I'd notice the difference. If you can't understand the distinction having been spelled out to you pretty clearly it's not my honesty in question. I admit the terms themselves are ambiguous but in the context of further sanction the distinction becomes pretty clear.

It is victim blaming, but so what? The militants who would have killed as many people as possible and were just looking for a spot to do it, got shot and they deserved it. They won't be going to prison, suspectdevice, they will be going to a cemetery if one will take them.

The bigots don't deserve the death penalty. The government should protect their free speech. But they were partly responsible for getting shot at, for endangering the police, and they are partly responsible for people who get shot in the future and partly responsible for **** like us being involved in wars. It's not a big part because they're just a tiny group of loudmouths, but they are instigators.

Maybe. Partly that's a little devil's advocacy. Could go either way.

I think this is me not noticing the difference.

LOL goofy that guy literally goes on to directly blame the people for getting shot. Good show though, you can always rely on you to say absolutely nothing when you disagree with a liberal poster on this board, but still come at me somehow.

Oh lol. You're not some uber misunderstood genius bro. You're just full of **** and looking for a way to not back away from your vile position while still defending it. You're quite transparent.

stockguy: if you are against this event, you are against free speech

13: No. The people at the event don't represent free speech and they don't really believe in it.

ikes: You're blaming people for ****ing getting shot!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

13: It's fair to point out that the organizers don't believe in free speech when people hold them up as the epitome of free speech.

ikes: What you're responding to there reinforces my point that you are blaming them for getting shot. It's ****ing pathetic!

Completely unhinged, man.

I'm kinda with this but I think the distinction between blame and responsibility worth defending but this may be because of the connotations of victim blaming.

Again, if you think the fact that they don't believe in free speech is relevant at all you're completely wrong. It's not. You bringing it up is just another example of how you want to, so bad, pull a full dereds here and blame someone for getting shot.

Hey, I know some people like this.

yeah he's totally saying that you can shoot someone for free speech, it's exactly the same thing

yep never disagree with liberals like suzzer/riverman

A+ post as always ikes, it's fun seeing you flail when you're riled up

I'm not backing away from it, I've gone to some lengths to explain it. I'm also trying pretty hard to be understood and accepted microbet's criticism as valid pretty quickly.

I mean, provoking violent people into violence requires a bit of responsibility portioning, no?

Am I responsible if I choose to go swimming in shark infested waters right after cutting myself shaving? I chose to put myself in an extremely dangerous situation. It's certainly not me who bites myself, so I'm not to blame for being bitten. But am I not responsible for creating a dangerous situation for myself on purpose?

I know you're not actually backing away from it. Read the post. It's perfectly obvious you're still blaming people for getting shot due to speech.

You really want to compare sharks to muslims? I don't think you mean to be racist, but the sharks don't have free will bro.

I'm not walking back what I said, I stand by it. The concept of Free Speech only relates to the interaction between governments and citizens. Which is the reason why you can get fired from a job for speaking freely.

and on to your Dearborn point...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orville_L._Hubbard

the very first sentence..."was the mayor of Dearborn, Michigan for 36 years, from 1942 to 1978. Sometimes referred to as the "Dictator of Dearborn", Hubbard was the most outspoken segregationist north of the Mason-Dixon line. During his administration, non-whites were aggressively discouraged from residing in Dearborn, and Hubbard's longstanding campaign to "Keep Dearborn Clean" was widely understood to mean "Keep Dearborn White." Hubbard is also remembered as a political boss who delivered a wide range of city services to his constituents, including the construction of a 626-acre (2.53 km2) rustic camp outside the city and the purchase of an eight-story senior citizen tower in Florida, all for use by Dearborn residents."

The neighborhoods that muslims moved into were the neighborhoods right on the border of Detroit. areas that were segregated black neighborhoods, that due to redlining and other ethnocentric practices were desolate and destroyed. How can people who have nothing, coming here from other countries living in one house with up to 10-15 people self segregate? they took what they could get.

you say you are someone who knows the area and cant be fooled (lol) but you. they used policies of segregation against the black people at the time and then muslims moved into those neighborhoods. To say that segregation in the city of dearborn wasn't planned by whites from the 40's to about the early 80's is disingenious and it is very obvious that you are the one making **** up as you go along.

They were no angels.

Never mention that the Geller crowd doesn't really believe in free speech because ikes loses his ****.

Okay you reject my distinction between blame and responsibility fine, I'm blaming the victim, let me try another tack, I apologise for the use of analogy but it's worth a final shot.

I expect everyone to have watched Die Hard movies, if you haven't in Die Hard 3 Bruce Willis' character is sent onto the streets of Harlem wearing a sandwich board with a racist slogan. He does this in response to Jeremy Irons who's already set a bomb off who's threatening to set off another. Bruce is saved from attack from people annoyed by the sandwich board by Samuel L Jackson and then goes on to save the day.

If Bruce had been attacked I would hold Jeremy Irons at least partially responsible, would you? Because if you would hold Jeremy Irons responsible for Bruce being attacked it makes no sense whatsoever to not hold Bruce at least partially responsible had he just woke up and decided to wear the sandwich board because he wanted to.

Oh look, people have the right to respond to speech with other stuff directly protected from the first amendment! Going around shooting people for speech is still attacking freedom of speech. Your point is completely irrelevant.
Given that it looks like you just googled the guy I brought up and tried to make it fit your point, it is really funny that you're going to take this line. If Dearborn was still white, you'd have a great point and I'd be super embarrassed.. Unfortunately, your point is eviscerated by the fact that dearborn is something like 45-50% Arab these days.

Dearborn's history of 'keep dearborn white' isn't why dearborn is pretty brown these days. Dearborn is heavily Arab despite people like Hubbard, not because of them.

According to the nonsense you've posted, you'd hold bruce willis responsible.

No I wouldn't because he was being coerced. Would you hold Jeremy Irons at least partially responsible?

It seems you must answer no.

Sigh you hope someone takes the bait sometimes, but it's so rarely that the bait is taken so easily...


Jeremy Irons would be responsible for the coercion. Not the assault. GG.