In article <46870b15$0$24743$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote:

"655321" <DipthotDipthot@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> wrote in message
news:DipthotDipthot-D260ED.12540630062007@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net...

In article <468625ce$0$31235$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote:

"655321" <DipthotDipthot@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> wrote in message
news:DipthotDipthot-260864.19084429062007@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net...

In article <468589a9$0$14959$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote:

"655321" <DipthotDipthot@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> wrote in message
news:7mdhi.8176$bP5.6118@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net...

Fester wrote:

"655321" <DipthotDipthot@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> wrote in message
news:DipthotDipthot-2A30C3.18293328062007@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.ne
t..
.

In article <46842d1d$0$7984$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
"Fester" <not@home.com> wrote:

So far so good. But when Muslims get *****, they have
collectively
demonstrated a penchant for violence against people and
property.

Which, to the very limited degree that it is true (and it's
only
partially true, as by far *most* Muslims don't actually
participate
in
such acts), is really beside the point, and not the reason for
my
initial posted reaction to the story.

Others have a couple of options as a result. Option 1,
appease
them
by doing whatever they can to not ***** them off. Option 2,
*****
them
off and punish them if they resort to violence to demonstrate
to
them
that they cannot get away with violence.

... or Option 3, realize that such blatantly obvious attacks on
a
segment of society are the equivalent of childish
temper-tantrums
in
terms of their comparative articulateness and moral value, and
choose
*not* to do so in the first place... not for reasons of
"appeasement"
(oooh, that bugaboo), but for reasons of civility.

And what do you do when the "child" throws his fit? Do you walk
on
egg
shells so as to avoid pissing it off? Do you let it know that
by
throwing a tantrum it can have it's own way, or do you send it
the
message that tantrums are not the way to get what it wants?

Your obtuseness is remarkable. The "children" throwing the
tantrum
in
my
analogy were the effigy-burners. The burning was the "fit."
It's
an
orgy
of fear and hate that infantilizes the participants to the level
of
the
purported target.

I mean, really, just look at this thread. One person posted
the
article
about the effigy burning, and another poster suggested smearing
feces
on
it prior to setting it aflame. Just how deep is the intended
offense?

As deep as needed to get the message across that violence is not
an
acceptable response

Now there goes another Irony-O-Meter.

to insulting their religion, however grievous some may find the
insult.

Gee, that sounds effective. "Don't like how we insult your
religion?
You
ain't seen nothing yet!"

Yeah, that's mature.

How old are we? What do we hope to gain? What is the message,
and
who
is the intended recipient? Again: how old are we?

What we hope to gain is a continuation of our freedom!

Gee, why didn't you say so? I didn't know that a second
Revolutionary
War
was underway. <checking calendar> Yup. July 4 is pretty close.

And like General Washington, who burned the Archbishop of
Canterbury
in
effigy at the shores of the Delaware, so must we do the same in
our
ongoing battle against our oppressive colonial masters, the
Muslim
minority.

What we hope to gain is the cessation of violence from a
radicalized
minority by forcing them to either accept that in a free society
they
will be insulted from time to time and that violence is not an
acceptable
response.

Yeah... the "fight stupid violence with stupid violence" strategy
has
always worked before.

What an incredibly dishonest misrepresentation of what I said.

If that's the case, then you were being extremely unclear.

What's the
matter, you can't answer what I really said, so you just figured
you'd
do
battle with a straw man?

Fine. I misunderstood. In that case, you haven't made your
explanation
-- and defense -- of the effigy burning clear.

Is giving Rushdie a knighthood a form of violence?

Of course not, and that's just a red herring.

Were the London car bombs thsi week a red herring too?

You are turning them into red herrings by asking this question. They
would *still* be red herrings if they had gone off and killed lots of
people.

Amazing how that works.

Such talk

You mean answering your question directly?

shows you to be a foul, callous idiot.

Thanks for that. I was wondering when you were going to start slinging
personal attacks.

Do not dare to presume to
lecture me about civlity and the virtues of not insulting others, you
hypocritical sack of *****.

Thank you sir; may I have another!

(I gather you found your outburst above as ironic as I did.)

How about burning a straw-filled effigy (no, not the metaphorical
rhetoric
that you like to punch at, but a real one)?

After a fashion, yes. It's a broad, deliberate, angry attack. One
burns symbolically what one wishes to harm directly. It's a fist
shaking in front of a face.

It's a rhetorical fist, not an actual one.

Of course. At least you see the fist in it. And that's part of my
point.

If somebody burns a US flag in a
public park, am I free to beat the living ***** out of him?

Another red herring. Where did I advocate anyone beating anyone up?

The answer is
no, despite the rhetorical fist being shaken in my face. A person
could
say
death to all queers quite legally in this country. OTOH, a person
cannot
threaten Joe the Queer with death. The KKK can march and shout and
say
death to Jews but they cannot say death to Joe Lieberman.

More red herrings.

I know quite a bit about what one is free to say and what one isn't,
and
what dances at the margins. In fact I've constantly held the position
that burning the American flag is a right that should remain protected
by law, and found offensive attempts to amend the Constitution to
forbid
it.

This has nothing to do with anything I was responding to, or how I was
responding to it. You have failed to comprehend my reaction to the
effigy story, as has Fred.

Yes, yes, your point is so erudite and beyond the grasp of the
troglodytes
you futilely try to explain it to.

Now, now... let's not be so hard on ourselves... It's not that big a
deal to have misread someone's intent.

Get over yourself you condescending little twerp.

Thank you, sir; may I have another!

That should be quite obvious.

Is drawing a cartoon of MoMo a form of violence to you?

Not per se. Neither were the controversial works of art discussed
earlier in this thread.

No, *per se*? Why the qualifier, when they were not violent
whatsoever,

Well, if you tattoo a cartoon of Mohammed on someone without his
consent, then it's violent. If you spray-paint a cartoon of Mohammed
on
the side of a mosque, then it's violence toward someone's property, aka
vandalism.

But not if you print it in your own news paper which is what ignited the
Msulim ***** storm.

Of course not. But that just proves the necessity for a qualifier.

(Now anticipating yet another tirade of personal insults.... bracing...)

whatever the context.

I hereby reiterate my "per se."

Shove your per se.

Aaah!

Thank you sir; may I have another!

They were no more violent than burning sacks of straw

Then I gather you don't approve of reacting with violence against
someone who burns the American flag, that someone who punches a
flag-burner in the face is committing an act of criminal assault.

Good for you. I wish more folks agree with you, yet on a regular
basis,
we have to face yet another vote-seeking politician trying to pass yet
another flag-burning law.

yet they engendered violence in response. And that is why the sacks
of
straw were burned!

That's insane, except as a juvenile temper tantrum. I have a
20-month-old niece who thinks this way. This is why I got involved in
this thread at all.

Yourr 20 yo clearly possesses more sense than you ever will.

...and the grammar dissolves as the tirade continues....

Fank you thir; kin I get summore?

To protest such violence in reaction to non-violence.

You're raving.

Yawn.

Nappy time?