Philosophy Now Forum

chaz wyman wrote:But that's okay says Bob, surely employers are able to employ whom they choose? Sure! okay for a white adult male Christian!! So much for a Bill of RIghts.

What the fuck does the Bill of Rights have to do with employment? Stay in your European cave, you know nothing about the U.S. Constitution!

bobevenson wrote:

chaz wyman wrote:But that's okay says Bob, surely employers are able to employ whom they choose? Sure! okay for a white adult male Christian!! So much for a Bill of RIghts.

What the fuck does the Bill of Rights have to do with employment? Stay in your European cave, you know nothing about the U.S. Constitution!

Maybe you should read the constitution, the declaration and the BoR before you pontificate upon them?

The point being is that your whole system is toilet paper whilst states can dismiss the laws of the Nation; the police can pursue their own actions; and the land is so lawless and disrespectful of other's opinions and dispositions that a state of barbarism exists across the land whose only achievement is the largest per capita prison population on earth.

chaz wyman wrote:I've no idea why you are asking that. It is perfectly legal to depict the prophet mohammed as far as I know.

Jesus Christ, you must be the dumbest son-of-a-bitch on the planet. British author Salman Rushdie is still running for his life after the Ayatolla Khomeni issued a fatwa against him for writing The Satanic Verses.

chaz wyman wrote:

bobevenson wrote:

chaz wyman wrote:But that's okay says Bob, surely employers are able to employ whom they choose? Sure! okay for a white adult male Christian!! So much for a Bill of RIghts.

What the fuck does the Bill of Rights have to do with employment? Stay in your European cave, you know nothing about the U.S. Constitution!

Maybe you should read the constitution, the declaration and the BoR before you pontificate upon them?

I know more about the Bill of Rights than you could ever dream of. Don't forget, you're talking to an American, not some fucking ignorant European. To be more specific, please cite any part of the U.S. Constitution that tells employers whom they must hire!

bobevenson wrote:

chaz wyman wrote:I've no idea why you are asking that. It is perfectly legal to depict the prophet mohammed as far as I know.

Jesus Christ, you must be the dumbest son-of-a-bitch on the planet. British author Salman Rushdie is still running for his life after the Ayatolla Khomeni issued a fatwa against him for writing The Satanic Verses.

He has the protection of the British people and the laws of the land you fuck witted moron!
Whilst the anonymous perpetrators of his death threats are in contravention of the law.
Presumably in the USA they would have the right to make those threats?

chaz wyman wrote:

bobevenson wrote:

chaz wyman wrote:I've no idea why you are asking that. It is perfectly legal to depict the prophet mohammed as far as I know.

Jesus Christ, you must be the dumbest son-of-a-bitch on the planet. British author Salman Rushdie is still running for his life after the Ayatolla Khomeni issued a fatwa against him for writing The Satanic Verses.

He has the protection of the British people and the laws of the land you fuck witted moron!
Whilst the anonymous perpetrators of his death threats are in contravention of the law.
Presumably in the USA they would have the right to make those threats?

Hell, no, you don't have the right to threaten people with violence in the USA. But you sure as hell can draw pictures of Mohammed, and JAMit is designed to protect people's rights by taking the battle directly to those ragheads who would dare try to stifle our freedom of speech!

bobevenson wrote:

chaz wyman wrote: He has the protection of the British people and the laws of the land you fuck witted moron!
Whilst the anonymous perpetrators of his death threats are in contravention of the law.
Presumably in the USA they would have the right to make those threats?

Hell, no, you don't have the right to threaten people with violence in the USA. But you sure as hell can draw pictures of Mohammed, and JAMit is designed to protect people's rights by taking the battle directly to those ragheads who would dare try to stifle our freedom of speech!

If it is already legal in the USA and the UK to draw pictures of the Prophet Mohammed, then what, pray tell, is the purpose of JAMit?
If you do not have the ability to threaten Muslims, what will be the purpose of this organisation?
You seem a little confused, as usual.

chaz wyman wrote:

bobevenson wrote:

chaz wyman wrote: He has the protection of the British people and the laws of the land you fuck witted moron!
Whilst the anonymous perpetrators of his death threats are in contravention of the law.
Presumably in the USA they would have the right to make those threats?

Hell, no, you don't have the right to threaten people with violence in the USA. But you sure as hell can draw pictures of Mohammed, and JAMit is designed to protect people's rights by taking the battle directly to those ragheads who would dare try to stifle our freedom of speech!

If it is already legal in the USA and the UK to draw pictures of the Prophet Mohammed, then what, pray tell, is the purpose of JAMit?
If you do not have the ability to threaten Muslims, what will be the purpose of this organisation?
You seem a little confused, as usual.

Let me explain it in very simple terms for your feeble mind to comprehend. JAMit draws an insulting picture of Mohammed or burns a Quran, which is entirely within the law. A bunch of Muslim ragheads tries to take violent action against us, but we are prepared with our concealed weapons, and we legally blow them away in self-defense. Are you able to understand this explanation, Dummkopf???

bobevenson wrote:Let me explain it in very simple terms for your feeble mind to comprehend. JAMit draws an insulting picture of Mohammed or burns a Quran, which is entirely within the law. A bunch of Muslim ragheads tries to take violent action against us, but we are prepared with our concealed weapoins, and we legally blow them away in self-defense. Are you able to understand this explanation, Dummkopf???

Except, you're not going to do it are you.

John wrote:

bobevenson wrote:Let me explain it in very simple terms for your feeble mind to comprehend. JAMit draws an insulting picture of Mohammed or burns a Quran, which is entirely within the law. A bunch of Muslim ragheads tries to take violent action against us, but we are prepared with our concealed weapoins, and we legally blow them away in self-defense. Are you able to understand this explanation, Dummkopf???

Except, you're not going to do it are you.

Why do you say that, because Europeans wouldn't have the balls to do it?

bobevenson wrote:Why do you say that, because Europeans wouldn't have the balls to do it?

If we can leave the casual xenophobia out of it, I say that because I don't think you'll do it. If you plan to do it then publicise your intent more widely than this forum because I think you already know that it's unlikely, based on the typical reaction you get from most posters, that anyone here is going to support you. As you already know it's unlikely you'll get anyone here to support you it makes me think that you're just posturing rather than seriously proposing to do what you say you will.

I think you should be entitled to draw pictures of Mohammed and burn the Koran if you want to but, personally, I doubt you're actually going to do it in any overtly public way.

John wrote:

bobevenson wrote:Why do you say that, because Europeans wouldn't have the balls to do it?

If we can leave the casual xenophobia out of it, I say that because I don't think you'll do it. If you plan to do it then publicise your intent more widely than this forum because I think you already know that it's unlikely, based on the typical reaction you get from most posters, that anyone here is going to support you. As you already know it's unlikely you'll get anyone here to support you it makes me think that you're just posturing rather than seriously proposing to do what you say you will.

I think you should be entitled to draw pictures of Mohammed and burn the Koran if you want to but, personally, I doubt you're actually going to do it in any overtly public way.

Well, you see, it's just an idea, but if you think there are not many Americans who would do something like this, I think you're badly mistaken. But to carry my idea a little further, JAMit would actually encourage Muslims to react violently so we could legally put them away. What do you think of that? Or to put it another way, a very small group of JAMit members could cause an international sensation and a tempest in a teapot with this kind of strategy. Remember when that Florida minister merely burned a few pages of the Quran, and the world went nuts, including president Obama and our military chief of staff?

bobevenson wrote:I think you should be entitled to draw pictures of Mohammed and burn the Koran if you want to but, personally, I doubt you're actually going to do it in any overtly public way.

Well, you see, it's just an idea, but if you think there are not many Americans who would do something like this, I think you're badly mistaken.[/quote]

I'm sure there are a lot of American's prepared to do a lot of things.

bobevenson wrote:But to carry my idea a little further, JAMit would actually encourage Muslims to react violently so we could legally put them away. What do you think of that?

You've already stated what you would do to incite a violent reaction. Are you proposing to do something more than that?

bobevenson wrote:Or to put it another way, a very small group of JAMit members could cause an international sensation and a tempest in a teapot with this kind of strategy.

You don't actually have any members though do you.

bobevenson wrote:Remember when that Florida minister burned a Quran, and the world went nuts, including president Obama and our military chief of staff?

Yes, I remember him. So you're proposing to copy him. How original.

You'll need a lot of people though bob because you're not a minister and if it's just you on your own you're just another nut-job burning the Koran. Hardly newsworthy.

bobevenson wrote:

chaz wyman wrote: If it is already legal in the USA and the UK to draw pictures of the Prophet Mohammed, then what, pray tell, is the purpose of JAMit?
If you do not have the ability to threaten Muslims, what will be the purpose of this organisation?
You seem a little confused, as usual.

Let me explain it in very simple terms for your feeble mind to comprehend. JAMit draws an insulting picture of Mohammed or burns a Quran, which is entirely within the law. /quote]

Burning a Koran and making a public display of insulting images of Mohammed is to be cherished and promoted, and is ok
Threatening Salman Rushdie is not.

What kind of a moron are you?

John, I hope you're smarter than you sound. This is just an idea. But let me tell you something, it only takes one person burning the Quran, or the American flag for that matter, to create more news than a million dollars can buy. Hardly newsworthy you say? Come on, John, you're not that dumb. And to address another point you made, JAMit will never break a single
Federal, State or local law. That's our ace in the hole, my friend.