|
edit: whoops, wrong thread
rudatron fucked around with this message at 00:58 on Sep 13, 2012 |
#
?
Sep 13, 2012 00:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 14:06 |
|
|
@AP BREAKING: US officials say the Pentagon is moving 2 warships toward Libyan coast.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2012 00:55
|
|
|
kylejack posted:This man is literally Genghis Khan. I don't think Genghis Khan went broke because his lovely hotels in Atlantic City went bust.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2012 00:56
|
|
|
Just The Facts posted:So the threat of violence trumps freedom of expression? No. Freedom of expression is very important, and I don't advocate muzzling speech. However, if you know beyond a reasonable doubt that your speech will incite violence, you had better have something drat important to be speaking about. Otherwise, it comes down to willingly taking an action that you know will put others in danger.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2012 00:56
|
|
|
kylejack posted:This man is literally Genghis Khan. Genghis Khan was competent at what he did.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2012 00:57
|
|
|
Just to expand on the two warships, it's two destroyers. It's a predictable show of force but the cruise missile capabilities of both ships would enable an attack on a possible enemy encampment within the country without putting boots on the ground.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2012 00:57
|
|
|
Antigen v2.0 posted:There should be no loving consequences. Regardless of what you believe of the validity of religion, there's no excuse for killing people over words. Theoretically I should be able to go out in public and announce that Jesus isn't the son of god, and Muhummad isn't the prophet, with no loving repercussions. This is stupid. Freedom of speech doesn't mean impunity to say any drat fool thing you like without consequence. It's the freedom to say things and not be imprisoned for them, and the freedom to be able to speak and not lose the protection of the law. It's not impunity to see your own comments protected from the response of others. I respect your right to say silly things about religion, but I also respect the right of religious people to call you an rear end in a top hat and treat you like an rear end in a top hat.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2012 00:58
|
|
|
Antigen v2.0 posted:There should be no loving consequences. Regardless of what you believe of the validity of religion, there's no excuse for killing people over words. Theoretically I should be able to go out in public and announce that Jesus isn't the son of god, and Muhummad isn't the prophet, with no loving repercussions. We need to get rid of the mentality that religion is the default and everything should yield to it, no, religion is a loving magical story that some people choose to believe, and thats just the facts of it. I don't care what anyone in the world believes but there's nothing that these people could say to me that would make me freak out like this, yet an American or westerner says one thing and they say it's ok to kill that person over words? Your opinion is so poorly informed I really don't know where to begin. "Islam" did not kill Vilerat. A group of extremists acting in Islam's name, and without the consent or even knowledge of 99.9999% of Muslims, killed Vilerat. There is a bunch of poo poo in every religious book and, for that matter, in any collection of beliefs, because people are irrational that is contradictory, can be seen as hateful, and is generally terrible, and those interpretations are in the eyes of the beholder. People are not the same as their belief systems. Seeing them as that, as you clearly see them, is dehumanizing, and you are becoming what you claim to oppose.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2012 00:58
|
|
|
kylejack posted:
 just about sums my feelings up.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2012 00:58
|
|
|
rudatron posted:This is basically on par with 9/11 conspiracy theories. For one, noted anti-islam...thing named Terry Jones has associated himself with it. quote:We have been contacted by the producer of the film, ‘Innocence of Muslims’, to help distribute it. Of ALL the people in the world to distribute a movie, why would you select the man known in America for provoking Muslim violence as the one to ask? While making false claims that you're Israeli and funded by a hundred Jews. C'mon. It's a bullshit setup. This was planned.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2012 00:59
|
|
|
Antigen v2.0 posted:There should be no loving consequences. Regardless of what you believe of the validity of religion, there's no excuse for killing people over words. Theoretically I should be able to go out in public and announce that Jesus isn't the son of god, and Muhummad isn't the prophet, with no loving repercussions. We need to get rid of the mentality that religion is the default and everything should yield to it, no, religion is a loving magical story that some people choose to believe, and thats just the facts of it. I don't care what anyone in the world believes but there's nothing that these people could say to me that would make me freak out like this, yet an American or westerner says one thing and they say it's ok to kill that person over words? Congratulations, you're yet another annoying internet jackass who parrots "it's just a loving magical story, get over it" rhetoric in combination with "  religion of peace " attacks on Islam lifted more or less verbatim from the worst sort of far-right Christians. hakkart posted:And that is the rub regarding that whole pesky "freedom of speech" thing. It's one thing not to say something because you know it's wrong or because it would hurt people, another to try to silence someone through fear. Radical Islam does the latter. The goal is to prevent people from speaking out against the faith using simple fear of violence. You know, freedom of speech is by no means absolute, even in the US. Freedom from prior restraint is closer, but there are all sorts of punishments - both criminal and civil - that can be imposed on someone after the fact for saying certain things. I honestly don't know the best way to handle this situation, but if the statements posted earlier in the thread from people involved in the film about wanting to incite violence are true, then that might be a reasonable basis for action. Also, the US government, through the embassy in Egypt, condemned the video before any violence happened. At this point, you're edging into "draw Muhammad day" bullshit. Condemning the people behind the video isn't caving to people who want to use violence to get their way; the video was the work of an rear end in a top hat before any blood was spilled, and it remains the work of an rear end in a top hat afterwards. Finally, I think any "to get what you want, just kill some people" messages will be blunted by the fact that right now, there are two governments working together to hunt down the people behind the killings.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2012 01:00
|
|
|
kylejack posted:
On the bright side, there is a non zero chance he will die choking on a duck cock. Hold out for the long odds. So now we know the video was produced by disgruntled ex-Egyptian anti-Islamic Copts in conjunction with our own home grown militant Christians. Hopefully that doesn't spill over into sectarian violence in Egypt but I'm not holding out those odds. On the bright side, depending on whatever contracts may or may not have been signed, the obvious editting of the video as per BMs earlier reports suggests to me legal recourse may be available against these fuckers on the behalf of the actors if no one else. Are there any avenues there any legal goons can think of?
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2012 01:00
|
|
|
Antigen v2.0 posted:There should be no loving consequences. Regardless of what you believe of the validity of religion, there's no excuse for killing people over words. Theoretically I should be able to go out in public and announce that Jesus isn't the son of god, and Muhummad isn't the prophet, with no loving repercussions. Theoretically, yes. But reality doesn't work that way at this point in history.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2012 01:01
|
|
|
J33uk posted:Just to expand on the two warships, it's two destroyers. It's a predictable show of force but the cruise missile capabilities of both ships would enable an attack on a possible enemy encampment within the country without putting boots on the ground. It'd be convenient if there was some isolated encampment to bomb, but I personally suspect the group that did this is operating out of Benghazi or one of the suburbs. Anyway, extra Marines are reinforcing the State Department presence in the country and Special Operations teams might get sent in without an announcement to be ready for a potential raid. Ideally, the Libyan government can take care of this on their own.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2012 01:02
|
|
|
rudatron posted:This is basically on par with 9/11 conspiracy theories. For one, noted anti-islam...thing named Terry Jones has associated himself with it. So unless you want to call him a 'psy-ops plant',.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2012 01:03
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:The term you're looking for is Useful Idiot (or racist rear end in a top hat in this case).
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2012 01:05
|
|
|
New Division posted:It'd be convenient if there was some isolated encampment to bomb, but I personally suspect the group that did this is operating out of Benghazi or one of the suburbs. The military presence is likely not there for much more than paying lipservice to tracking anyone down, but it could be important for quicker response times to evacuate in the event of more violence. However, it's likely that after such a high-profile attack, whatever group was responsible for this is going to pretty much disappear.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2012 01:05
|
|
|
New Division posted:Ideally, the Libyan government can take care of this on their own. I doubt it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2012 01:05
|
|
|
Just The Facts posted:I doubt it. I'm skeptical too, but if they can take out the group that did this on their own it would be a great thing for the US and Libya.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2012 01:07
|
|
|
New Division posted:I'm skeptical too, but if they can take out the group that did this on their own it would be a great thing for the US and Libya. I'm not really sure Libya taking out the perpetrators will assure anyone that they can prevent armed mobs from launching mortars and grenades at buildings in the middle of the city.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2012 01:11
|
|
|
Space Gopher posted:Congratulations, you're yet another annoying internet jackass who parrots "it's just a loving magical story, get over it" rhetoric in combination with " While you do have a point that knowingly endangering someone by saying words is reprehensible, you have to remember also that other people, and by extension this guy too, have endangered (even lost) their own lives in producing their media. In my opinion, speech should never be illegal, save obviously for libel. The blame does not fall on the man who says "you are wrong and this is stupid", it's on the man who says "someone talked bad about us, we should kill people at random"
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2012 01:11
|
|
|
New Division posted:I'm skeptical too, but if they can take out the group that did this on their own it would be a great thing for the US and Libya. Well, hopefully it won't turn into a clusterfuck where the wrong people pay the price and ends up drawing in support to groups like the real perps.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2012 01:14
|
|
|
Sorry if this has been posted, but I noticed this comment on the Mittani.com eulogy:Norm Bates posted:I'd like to thank all of you for the kind comments about Sean. I worked with him and we both have the same job for the Dept. of State. I thought that you may like to know why he was there till the end and didn't leave with everyone else. One of the requirements of our job is that we control all of the Secret and cryptology equipment at Embassy's and Consulate's. While the non-essential staff were allowed to get out, he had to stick it out until everything was destroyed to keep it from falling into hostile hands which could put more lives at risk. He was a great Communicator and friend and he will be missed in our small community as he will be missed in yours. EDIT-Over 250 eve outposts have been renamed in memorial, it was about 100 this morning. How many outposts are there total? http://evemaps.dotlan.net/outposts/changes Scaramouche fucked around with this message at 01:19 on Sep 13, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2012 01:14
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:This is stupid. Freedom of speech doesn't mean impunity to say any drat fool thing you like without consequence. It's the freedom to say things and not be imprisoned for them, and the freedom to be able to speak and not lose the protection of the law. It's not impunity to see your own comments protected from the response of others. I respect your right to say silly things about religion, but I also respect the right of religious people to call you an rear end in a top hat and treat you like an rear end in a top hat. Treating you like an rear end in a top hat (i.e. burning you alive by setting your house on fire with an RPG) contradicts 'protection of the law'. Being called an rear end in a top hat or having someone disagree with your opinion is not really an unintended or unexpected consequence of putting forth a potentially divisive opinion and therefore would not be considered a repercussion (by definition).
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2012 01:15
|
|
|
hakkart posted:While you do have a point that knowingly endangering someone by saying words is reprehensible, you have to remember also that other people, and by extension this guy too, have endangered (even lost) their own lives in producing their media. In my opinion, speech should never be illegal, save obviously for libel. The blame does not fall on the man who says "you are wrong and this is stupid", it's on the man who says "someone talked bad about us, we should kill people at random" Someone who literally commits murder should always be fully culpable, but I also think there is room for a sliding scale whereby someone who knowingly endangers the lives of others with their speech (especially when said speech is pointless and ignorant, not at all noble) is still morally responsible for their actions. And it's not like we have to portion out bits of "one unit of blame" to each party. Someone who murders is 100% responsible for doing that, and someone who incites violence for no good reason is also responsible for that. It's not as though putting some ethical burden on the video creators automatically alleviates some from the murderers -- we're not distributing pieces of a blame pie. There is unlimited pie here and everyone can grab as much as they are entitled to. speng31b fucked around with this message at 01:20 on Sep 13, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2012 01:16
|
|
|
msnbc is apparently going to run a piece on "The internet community remembering Sean Smith" in a few minutes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2012 01:16
|
|
|
hakkart posted:While you do have a point that knowingly endangering someone by saying words is reprehensible, you have to remember also that other people, and by extension this guy too, have endangered (even lost) their own lives in producing their media. In my opinion, speech should never be illegal, save obviously for libel. The blame does not fall on the man who says "you are wrong and this is stupid", it's on the man who says "someone talked bad about us, we should kill people at random" You're absolutely right that the man who pulls the trigger clearly bears direct responsibility and has the most agency, but that does that mean that the man in the bar calling another man's wife a whore has no moral responsibility or culpability for being punched in the face? It is entirely the fault of the man who was so insulted? EDIT: As octoroon says above, blame and moral culpability are not finite resources. ComradeCosmobot fucked around with this message at 01:21 on Sep 13, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2012 01:18
|
|
|
steve1 posted:msnbc is apparently going to run a piece on "The internet community remembering Sean Smith" in a few minutes. Yeah, I just saw that. Tune in if you're interested folks.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2012 01:19
|
|
|
steve1 posted:msnbc is apparently going to run a piece on "The internet community remembering Sean Smith" in a few minutes. I think everyone could use a laugh at this point. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2012 01:19
|
|
|
steve1 posted:msnbc is apparently going to run a piece on "The internet community remembering Sean Smith" in a few minutes. Anyone have a link to a livestream? edit: Never mind, found it. VirtualStranger fucked around with this message at 01:24 on Sep 13, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2012 01:20
|
|
|
Eve-O has become something of a candlelight vigil, though I'll be kind of surprised if it's mentioned. The game has about 850 outposts total and 232 of them were renamed today.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2012 01:22
|
|
|
OneEightHundred posted:Eve-O has become something of a candlelight vigil, though I'll be kind of surprised if it's mentioned. The game has about 850 outposts total and 232 of them were renamed today. I know very little of that game and that still sounds pretty touching.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2012 01:31
|
|
|
Withnail posted:Treating you like an rear end in a top hat (i.e. burning you alive by setting your house on fire with an RPG) contradicts 'protection of the law'. Being called an rear end in a top hat or having someone disagree with your opinion is not really an unintended or unexpected consequence of putting forth a potentially divisive opinion and therefore would not be considered a repercussion (by definition).
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2012 01:32
|
|
|
Scaramouche posted:Norm Bates posted: This is going to end up at some point as made into a movie - either Hollywood or TV. It's got drama, good, evil, conspiracy, tragedy, action, hero's from both sides (the local Libyan security detail who risked their lives with the American Marines) and villains (the actual attackers, the guy who made the movie along with Rommney as the scheming politician trying to take the attack as nothing but a political point to make) and I'm sure they can add in a local love interest for one of the Marines (if not Vile Rat's family left behind). Vile Rat's going to be shown giving his life to prevent the secret and cryptology equipment falling into the wrong hands, much to the dismay of the milita leader he foils by doing so. I don't know if he died protecting it, but I'm sure Hollywood can make it so. I hope they get a good actor to play him. And don't let Michael Bay direct it. Maybe Cameron will do it after Avatar IV.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2012 01:35
|
|
|
kylejack posted:
It's even
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2012 01:37
|
|
|
OneEightHundred posted:Eve-O has become something of a candlelight vigil, though I'll be kind of surprised if it's mentioned. The game has about 850 outposts total and 232 of them were renamed today. This is apparently exactly what it's about.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2012 01:37
|
|
|
I misinterpreted the msnbc teaser for the Vilerat piece. Now they're saying "later on tonight."VirtualStranger posted:Anyone have a link to a livestream? Got a link? Heading back to my TV-less home.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2012 01:38
|
|
|
steve1 posted:I misinterpreted the msnbc teaser for the Vilerat piece. Now they're saying "later on tonight." They're probably going to put it into the last segment and tag the whole show with it. Still standing by for "a gamer's goodbye" on MSNBC...
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2012 01:40
|
|
|
steve1 posted:I misinterpreted the msnbc teaser for the Vilerat piece. Now they're saying "later on tonight." I presume it will be the final segment, closing out the show. Tune in closer to the end of the hour, although Keith Ellison had a nice interview.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2012 01:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 14:06 |
|
|
Comstar posted:I hope they get a good actor to play him.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2012 01:40
|
|