re: Shooting in Garland, Tx at Muhammad Art exhibit

quote:

---

Your position is that we should accept this heinous reality, and I vehemently disagree.

---

Well your "reality" involves talking snakes and a zombie savior.

It's called deflection. He knows he's painted himself into a corner with the victim blaming and is uncomfortable with the comparisons to "what was she wearing?" And "Eric Garner was asking for it" crowd.

So, the only move at that point is to make fun of someone else's beliefs, even though those beliefs weren't a part of the thread at all.

Meanwhile, the soft bigotry of low expectations (toward Muslims) that he clings to gets to stay fully intact.

Ok, thats fair. But do you find it odd that you view drawing the prophet as insensitive/foolish but have no difficulty flippantly referencing Jesus as a "zombie savior"?

Why do you think that may be?

For the record I'm not offended by either.

I know you don't care what random believers think, that wasn't the question. My question was essentially why are you comfortable with one type of religious satire but not another one?

My suspicion is that this may provide us insight into why you blame the victim here but don't feel comfortable with the "what was she wearing?" comparison.

quote:

---

It's not benign doodles to them. If you can't see the issue from both sides, then you really don't understand the issue that well.

---

Reading is fundamental.

quote:

---

My question was essentially why are you comfortable with one type of religious satire but not another one?

---

I'm comfortable with all kinds of religious satire. I don't care that those idiots had a Mohammed cartoon contest, my issue is with people acting shocked when Muslims get pissed about it. This happens all the fricking time.

quote:

---

Any thoughts on my question?

---

It's not a valid comparison if you would really think about it.

Everyone knows that Muslims kill over drawings of Mohammed.

That would be like a woman going to a Rape-aholics Anonymous meeting with a T-shirt that says "Rape me," and then questioning why she got raped for what she was wearing.

quote:

---

That would be like a woman going to a Rape-aholics Anonymous meeting with a T-shirt that says "Rape me," and then questioning why she got raped for what she was wearing.

---

Speaking of not-valid comparisons.

Your logical reasoning is non-existent.

Disliking a comparison doesn't invalidate it. The logic is sound.

True, they aren't necessarily mutually exclusive, but when you show an eagerness to mock a different religion while urging everyone to understand the point of view of the ones being violent you are presenting a pretty clear picture of someone highly inconsistent.

The Atlantic had a great piece yesterday responding to Gary Trudeau's criticism of the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists. Not saying this exactly describes you, Stonehog, but it's a worthwhile read.

Critique of knee jerk defense of Islam

A good excerpt:

Had the gunmen been “privileged,” then presumably the cartoons would have been commendable satire. The cartoonists would then have been martyrs to free speech. But since the gunmen were “non-privileged,” the responsibility for their actions shifts to the people they targeted, robbing them of agency. It’s almost as if he thinks of underdogs as literal dogs. If a dog bites a person who touches its dinner, we don’t blame the dog. The dog can’t help itself. The person should have known better.