I don't think the Americans want laws like that. Sure as hell not the real Americans.

Gellar was the terrorist here.

I think your's and everyone else's definition of the word terrorist differs slightly.

Please tell me you're not American.

Terror can be physical and mental.

ikes is right here. Edsel Ford, Crestwood, and Dearborn High all have a decent Arab percentage. As their wealth has increased, it's allowed for the move to the west and north. Livonia, Northville, Troy, Sterling Heights, Canton. So the area is becoming more heavily integrated.

But the area of Vernor/Dix/Miller is where the initial settlement of Lebanese occurred. Outside of Dearborn, but right on the border with the working-class Fordson area. That area mimicked the western edge of Detroit both in demographics and property values. And so when the emigration of more Middle Eastern peoples has gone on and Detroit has deteriorated, they've moved into what is a great Fordson community (and revitalized it).

When Hubbard left office in 1978, Dearborn had less than 100 blacks. Out of nearly 100k people. There was no black community. There was a working-class Fordson area (with houses available to turn into apartments and sublets). The white-collar Westborn and Ford Homes was a little beyond the means of the initial influx but obviously that's changed.

I'm not always sure the distinction is clear I don't see what precludes satirists from being bigots.

What I do think is important is the belief that is being targeted. Two cartoons one attacking those that believe it is okay to execute people for apostasy another representing Mohammed. The first I think okay the second not, both beliefs I consider wrong the difference is I don't see the merit in causing offence to those who hold the second.

Hey, look, another clueless poster joins the fray. Can you name any posters ITT who you think want to outlaw drawings of Mohammed in USA#1?

That wasn't what I said. I said that people in this thread would be in favor of laws against hate speech, or at least in favor of liability for the attacks that are provoked.

These are the blatant posts that come to mind, but its oozing out of the subtext of many others. A few of the posts find the rednecks to be equivalent or even worse than the attackers.

Phil is British. Don't know about the other guy.

Maybe he's on medication.

You know, because you can't support people's right to free speech if they don't support another person's right to free speech, because they are *******s.

Or something like that.

In response to your above point about how the flood gates could be opened.

Throughout history there have been societies of which it would be approved or even applauded if one was to publicly claim that x race/religion was out to get us.

Your approach that "well, even if someone is a bigot they ought be protected"... is understood.

Its tough to feel bad about a KKK meeting or even a SIOA meeting getting shot up. What do you think KKK/SIOA people would do if they had power in the USA gov for example?

We are not talking about folks whom are critical of religion, SIOA members time again, speak negatively about Muslims in general.

So my reaction is not in agreement or even along the lines of "well the sioa folks deserved to get shot". My reaction is along the lines of the TV show Oz



Thats sort of how I feel. I'm not in agreement with shooting or attacking a racist/bigot just for being a racist/bigot. And btw I pray for SIOA members as well as the two shooters and the family of the two shooters, I hope these SIOA folks change their views. I cant find a way as a Christian though, to say that well its totally disgusting that the SIOA place got shot up.

I'd feel the same way if say during the 1960s, a KKK meeting was attacked by a group of African Americans/Jews, I would say "Oh well", and then quickly get on with my life.

You're massively off base and obviously trolling at this point.

Maybe the former, but not the latter. It was an honest attempt, which perhaps makes it more lame, though I didn't expect you to just agree.

This might be the dumbest question I've ever seen. You cannot be serious when you ask this right?

Short answer: inordinate amounts

If you had asked "What progress can be made without hurting anyones feelings" it would have been more poignant, but the answer "None at all, ever" would have been just as obvious.

Right. You think its an important distinction because you know that victim blaming is bad, but you still want to do it. So you call it victim responsibility-ing. And are then frustrated when people don't let you get away with it.

If only men in this country stuck to slutresponsibility-ing, I think everyone would be so much happier!

You pointed out A difference between the two scenarios, but claimed it is THE difference. This is your way of escaping the fact that you think victim blaming is ok when you hate the victims but dont think its ok when you are sympathetic to the victims. That is a reasonable position for a human being to hold, but it isnt exactly intellectually defensible.

You probably didn't look at the picture included. It was the New York Times asking that question with the next opinion piece being "Catholicism undervalues women" which presumably would be offensive to Catholics

Firstly I don't think victim blaming is wrong, it may be but not in every case. You are correct however in that my initial presentation of the distinction may have been motivated by the weight the term carries. So for clarity I am no longer looking to get away with it I am happy to blame the organisers of the art event. But blame isn't binary, the greater portion of the blame rests with the shooters.

I pointed out a couple, but intent is important when apportioning blame. I’m fairly sure you’re at least as familiar as I am with the ethical distinction and we do distinguish legally. Blameworthiness entails responsibility, we are not blameworthy for something have no responsibility for but we may not be blameworthy for a harmful event even if we are responsible.

I accept that I didn’t present my argument well and now cede, in the case of Geller et al, I am apportioning some blame. However I think you are doing my position a disservice, firstly I just want to take hate off the table, I consider their acts warrant my moral opprobrium but I am perfectly able to find morally wrong actors with whom I agree. It is both a reasonable position, and an intellectually defensible one, to try and determine the morally relevant characteristics of some event when looking to blame someone. To what extent is an actor responsible, what is the proximity of the actor to the consequence, to what extent are the consequences foreseeable, what are the consequences of not acting, what was the intent and motivation of the actor, these are some of the relevant factors we can consider.

This is not the only ethical framework available and I am personally reluctant to completely endorse a consequentialist interpretation, to some extent because of concerns I have regarding responsibility, and this is stuff I'm working on trying to understand rather than something I'm claiming a grasp of but I don't see it as intellectually dishonest even if incorrect.

hahaha so now he's straight up supporting victim blaming. Awesome.

Its not dishonest I suppose if you reliably apply it in this way, but I'd be a bit skeptical of that and would be very interested to see if you could come up with examples when there is a very sympathetic victim that you have decided is "to blame" and an example of a very unsympathetic victim that you have decided isnt to blame or isnt responsible. In other words, an example the converse of the bigot/rape victim scenario.

It just seems awfully convenient, but you are right it isnt proof positive you are being dishonest.

FYP

You are free to raise examples, like you can probably guess where my sympathies lie and it shouldn't be too difficult to find examples that would challenge my integrity. It may be harder for me but I'm sure I could contrive some. I'm not offended by challenges to my honesty but it may be better to demonstrate why my position is dishonest than just suggest it may be.

In any case I've ceded the errors in my earlier argument and been pretty open about what my motivations may have been. This I think suggests an honest approach. 20 years after graduating in history and politics I've returned to college part time to do a masters in applied philosophy, this clearly makes me an authority on nothing but I take my ethics pretty seriously and am not looking to win an argument here but to explain my position. If I am lying I am lying to myself and I've no interest in that.

So in this thread we have at least some folks on the left blaming Gellar & company for provoking the incident. Basically because ithey knew that there were extremist Muslims who believe it is ok to kill people for making fun of Mohammed.

So by this "logic" we can apportion blame similarly in other circumstances. For instance when a doctor has a practice that specializes in late term abortions that doctor is similarly provoking those Christian extremists who are motivated to kill due to their religious beliefs. So when an abortion doctor is gunned down by a Christian extremist that doctor has some level of responsibility for inciting the violence.

Anyone who believes in the bolded above, even in the tiniest bit, should be ashamed of themselves. ALL of the blame rests with the shooters.

It's horrific that anyone could place *any* blame on the people who held this event. Really, this position is that if anyone is offended by anything, the person who offends them are at least a little to blame.

Possibly one of the worst things I've ever read on these boards. Everyone who sides with the "offended Muslims" in this thread is ****ing pathetic.