Random House Publishing Let's the Terrorists Win
- Thread starter RAMSTORIA
- Start date
DarkSageRK
Banned
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']
I give this story a big #-o[/quote]
I was going to post a rambling diatribe, but then I realized what you said summed up my thoughts sufficiently.
So...seconded.
I give this story a big #-o[/quote]
I was going to post a rambling diatribe, but then I realized what you said summed up my thoughts sufficiently.
So...seconded.
thrustbucket
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (100%)
Really disappointing.
Great, chalk up another victory for the "Can't upset the Muslims" mantra.
God Damnit.
We need a 24-Hour "Muslims, Go
Yourselves" Marathon, and have it forcibly broadcast in every Muslim country in the world. Followed by a sizable force present to prevent any violence, and a large banner that reads "Now leave us the alone!".
~HotShotX
God Damnit.
We need a 24-Hour "Muslims, Go
Yourselves" Marathon, and have it forcibly broadcast in every Muslim country in the world. Followed by a sizable force present to prevent any violence, and a large banner that reads "Now leave us the alone!".~HotShotX
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='HotShotX']Great, chalk up another victory for the "Can't upset the Muslims" mantra.[/quote]
"Can't upset the fundamentalist Muslims or Christians" mantra.
Fixed.
"Can't upset the fundamentalist Muslims or Christians" mantra.
Fixed.
thrustbucket
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (100%)
Huh? When was the last time something like this happened as a result of Christians (Or any other religion) threatening violence? Why is it so important to include other religions when in the last 100 years other religions are not known for making violent threats to get their way?
[quote name='thrustbucket']Huh? When was the last time something like this happened as a result of Christians (Or any other religion) threatening violence? Why is it so important to include other religions when in the last 100 years other religions are not known for making violent threats to get their way?[/quote]
Because some Christians have jumped from making violent threats to just shooting up liberal churches when they don't get their way.
~HotShotX
Because some Christians have jumped from making violent threats to just shooting up liberal churches when they don't get their way.
~HotShotX
thrustbucket
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (100%)
[quote name='HotShotX']Because some Christians have jumped from making violent threats to just shooting up liberal churches when they don't get their way.
~HotShotX[/QUOTE]
Still an absolutely stretching shitty comparison. No other religion on earth today has more members that make more violent threats or commit more violence. And that's a sad fact many are in denial of.
We've been around this subject before in this forum multiple times. It's just a shame that every time another Islamic threat of violence occurs, and even succeeds (in this case) that certain anti-christian "elements" around here feel they need to compare Christan's as if they are just as guilty of this sort of thing, even though there is a total failure of proof.
~HotShotX[/QUOTE]
Still an absolutely stretching shitty comparison. No other religion on earth today has more members that make more violent threats or commit more violence. And that's a sad fact many are in denial of.
We've been around this subject before in this forum multiple times. It's just a shame that every time another Islamic threat of violence occurs, and even succeeds (in this case) that certain anti-christian "elements" around here feel they need to compare Christan's as if they are just as guilty of this sort of thing, even though there is a total failure of proof.
[quote name='thrustbucket']Still an absolutely stretching shitty comparison. No other religion on earth today has more members that make more violent threats or commit more violence. And that's a sad fact many are in denial of.
We've been around this subject before in this forum multiple times. It's just a shame that every time another Islamic threat of violence occurs, and even succeeds (in this case) that certain anti-christian "elements" around here feel they need to compare Christan's as if they are just as guilty of this sort of thing, even though there is a total failure of proof.[/quote]
I'm not saying that they aren't arguably the most violent fundamentalist religion on the planet. What I am saying is that despite the obvious contrast in magnitude regarding their "ing out of their minds" meter, that does not absolve some of the lesser religious nutjobs, particularly fundamentalist Christians.
All points aside, this is admittedly more about Muslims than it is Christians, so I agree that we should be staying on point.
~HotShotX
We've been around this subject before in this forum multiple times. It's just a shame that every time another Islamic threat of violence occurs, and even succeeds (in this case) that certain anti-christian "elements" around here feel they need to compare Christan's as if they are just as guilty of this sort of thing, even though there is a total failure of proof.[/quote]
I'm not saying that they aren't arguably the most violent fundamentalist religion on the planet. What I am saying is that despite the obvious contrast in magnitude regarding their "
ing out of their minds" meter, that does not absolve some of the lesser religious nutjobs, particularly fundamentalist Christians.All points aside, this is admittedly more about Muslims than it is Christians, so I agree that we should be staying on point.
~HotShotX
[quote name='camoor']"Can't upset the fundamentalist Muslims or Christians" mantra.
Fixed.[/QUOTE]
C'mon now, Christianity is slammed on a regular basis in the entertainment sector, whether it be books, tv, movies, or music. You occasionally hear about the Vatican asking for a boycott or some other group asking the same thing (McDonalds comes to mind as the most recent). Can you name anything in recent memory that was canned due to an outcry from the Christian community?
[quote name='HotShotX']Because some Christians have jumped from making violent threats to just shooting up liberal churches when they don't get their way.
~HotShotX[/QUOTE]
That's not comparable by any means. One nut-job, emphasis on nut-job, shoots up a church for personal reasons.
Fixed.[/QUOTE]
C'mon now, Christianity is slammed on a regular basis in the entertainment sector, whether it be books, tv, movies, or music. You occasionally hear about the Vatican asking for a boycott or some other group asking the same thing (McDonalds comes to mind as the most recent). Can you name anything in recent memory that was canned due to an outcry from the Christian community?
[quote name='HotShotX']Because some Christians have jumped from making violent threats to just shooting up liberal churches when they don't get their way.
~HotShotX[/QUOTE]
That's not comparable by any means. One nut-job, emphasis on nut-job, shoots up a church for personal reasons.
thrustbucket
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (100%)
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']You occasionally hear about the Vatican asking for a boycott or some other group asking the same thing (McDonalds comes to mind as the most recent). Can you name anything in recent memory that was canned due to an outcry from the Christian community?
[/QUOTE]
That's not comparable either though, because they don't threaten violence when they throw their weight around.
There are lots of Islamic sensitivity advocacy groups that do the same thing (C.A.R.E), and that's acceptable.
[/QUOTE]
That's not comparable either though, because they don't threaten violence when they throw their weight around.
There are lots of Islamic sensitivity advocacy groups that do the same thing (C.A.R.E), and that's acceptable.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']Can you name anything in recent memory that was canned due to an outcry from the Christian community?[/quote]
- Sexual education about birth control (abstinence only kids, no spreading before the wedding)
- HPV vaccine
- Stem cell research
- Gay marriage
- Harry Potter in public schools (I consider banned storytime readings, book burnings and formal censorship petitions worthy of this list)
- First printing of GTA:SA
- Uncensored version of Manhunt 2
- Two women kissing on cable TV
- "Indecent" talk on public airways (whatever that means)
- Opie and Anthony
- My radio DJ buddy who accidentally said 'asshole' on air
- Slots, horse races, casinos (but isn't insurance a form of gambling
) - Sales of alcohol on a Sunday in the south, you can't buy in the grocery stores of certain jurisdictions, and some places are dry counties (just like those fundie Muslim countries)
- Sexual scenes with artistic merit from many movies (after all, Christian clergy always has a veto vote in movie ratings, please watch "This Film Is Not Yet Rated" below for more info - oh and don't forget gratuitious violence and light sexual exploitation are ok, it's only the "icky" intimate stuff that the Chrisitan right doesn't like) -->CLICK ME
thrustbucket
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (100%)
Your list means nothing in the context of comparisons to this thread's OP, without narrowing it to issues that were canned by threats of violence.
And that end quote is laughable, and only serves to display your staunch intolerance of the religious and religion. You have far more fascism to fear from centralized private fractional banking such as the Federal Reserve, IMF, BIS, and World Bank.
And that end quote is laughable, and only serves to display your staunch intolerance of the religious and religion. You have far more fascism to fear from centralized private fractional banking such as the Federal Reserve, IMF, BIS, and World Bank.
Last edited by a moderator:
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='thrustbucket']That's not comparable either though, because they don't threaten violence when they throw their weight around.
There are lots of Islamic sensitivity advocacy groups that do the same thing (C.A.R.E), and that's acceptable.[/quote]
That's a fair point - I will generally agree that in modern times fundie Christians threaten violence less often then fundie Muslims. I would also submit that efforts such as economic boycotts are perfectly acceptable - as long as they aren't an institutionalized way of enforcing bigotry, racism, or other social ills.
But let's not pretend we all don't tiptoe around the delicate sensibilities of the Fundamentalist/Evangelical Christian right. They've had their boy in the Presidency for the past eight years, they've infilitrated many upper layers of the American executive and legislative branches, and some power is starting to tip their way in the judicial branch. They are also masters of manipulating poorly-written/thought-out legislation to their advantage, and have a loyal cadre of morality enforcers who are always sitting on-call.
There are lots of Islamic sensitivity advocacy groups that do the same thing (C.A.R.E), and that's acceptable.[/quote]
That's a fair point - I will generally agree that in modern times fundie Christians threaten violence less often then fundie Muslims. I would also submit that efforts such as economic boycotts are perfectly acceptable - as long as they aren't an institutionalized way of enforcing bigotry, racism, or other social ills.
But let's not pretend we all don't tiptoe around the delicate sensibilities of the Fundamentalist/Evangelical Christian right. They've had their boy in the Presidency for the past eight years, they've infilitrated many upper layers of the American executive and legislative branches, and some power is starting to tip their way in the judicial branch. They are also masters of manipulating poorly-written/thought-out legislation to their advantage, and have a loyal cadre of morality enforcers who are always sitting on-call.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='thrustbucket']Your list means nothing in the context of comparisons to this thread's OP, without narrowing it to issues that were canned by threats of violence.
And that end quote is laughable, and only serves to display your staunch intolerance of the religious and religion. You have far more fascism to fear from centralized private fractional banking such as the Federal Reserve, IMF, BIS, and World Bank.[/quote]
It's just talking about the decoration of the fascist state, what a stage magician would call "distraction".
How many Americans could explain exactly what the mission of the organizations you mention is? How many of them really know what these organizations do?
Yet how many Americans do you think have an opinion about abortion, gay marriage, Stern's potty mouth, and whether flag burnings should be legal?
BTW I love your quote, I use it all the time when explaining how business really works, always good for a chuckle.
And that end quote is laughable, and only serves to display your staunch intolerance of the religious and religion. You have far more fascism to fear from centralized private fractional banking such as the Federal Reserve, IMF, BIS, and World Bank.[/quote]
It's just talking about the decoration of the fascist state, what a stage magician would call "distraction".
How many Americans could explain exactly what the mission of the organizations you mention is? How many of them really know what these organizations do?
Yet how many Americans do you think have an opinion about abortion, gay marriage, Stern's potty mouth, and whether flag burnings should be legal?
BTW I love your quote, I use it all the time when explaining how business really works, always good for a chuckle.
thrustbucket
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (100%)
I can agree with all that. As I've said in other threads, I tend to be a majority rules guy.
I guess my take on it is if that's what the people of America want, then so be it. If we had a decade of nothing but secular Democrats running the show, the Christian right would hate much of the legislation, but I'd say the same thing - that if that's what the American people vote for, then let them have it and tough titty to those that don't like it.
I guess my take on it is if that's what the people of America want, then so be it. If we had a decade of nothing but secular Democrats running the show, the Christian right would hate much of the legislation, but I'd say the same thing - that if that's what the American people vote for, then let them have it and tough titty to those that don't like it.
thrustbucket
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (100%)
[quote name='camoor']
How many Americans could explain exactly what the mission of the organizations you mention is? How many of them really know what these organizations do?[/quote]
Great point, and the real "problem" in this country, as I see it.
Exactly. These are distractions at best. This is what the media feeds us as the important issues. It isn't any wonder that the largest banks mostly own most media.
Edit: I just realized, Camoor, that you are like the only poster that can make me livid in one post and I fully agree with in the next, consistently. Bravo!
How many Americans could explain exactly what the mission of the organizations you mention is? How many of them really know what these organizations do?[/quote]
Great point, and the real "problem" in this country, as I see it.
Exactly. These are distractions at best. This is what the media feeds us as the important issues. It isn't any wonder that the largest banks mostly own most media.
Edit: I just realized, Camoor, that you are like the only poster that can make me livid in one post and I fully agree with in the next, consistently. Bravo!
Last edited by a moderator:
thrustbucket
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (100%)
[quote name='dcfox']Can't we just applaud the publisher for showing some discretion and acting responsibly by not publishing the book? Do we really need another incident like what happened when that Danish newspaper published those cartoons of Muhammad?[/QUOTE]
If a coalition of passive Islamic organizations had stated they were offended, and why, and asked nicely to not publish the book, then I'd say maybe. Since they were threatened with violence and caved, I'm going to have to say no.
The single most important thing to any Western society is Free Speech. This is sacred. This is the foundation of everything else. As soon as we start letting throwback bullies scare us from our first and most important right, we've lost our souls.
If a coalition of passive Islamic organizations had stated they were offended, and why, and asked nicely to not publish the book, then I'd say maybe. Since they were threatened with violence and caved, I'm going to have to say no.
The single most important thing to any Western society is Free Speech. This is sacred. This is the foundation of everything else. As soon as we start letting throwback bullies scare us from our first and most important right, we've lost our souls.
[quote name='thrustbucket']If a coalition of passive Islamic organizations had stated they were offended, and why, and asked nicely to not publish the book, then I'd say maybe. Since they were threatened with violence and caved, I'm going to have to say no.
The single most important thing to any Western society is Free Speech. This is sacred. This is the foundation of everything else. As soon as we start letting throwback bullies scare us from our first and most important right, we've lost our souls.[/quote]
So even with the very real possibility that by publishing the book people will die you would still publish it out of principle?
The single most important thing to any Western society is Free Speech. This is sacred. This is the foundation of everything else. As soon as we start letting throwback bullies scare us from our first and most important right, we've lost our souls.[/quote]
So even with the very real possibility that by publishing the book people will die you would still publish it out of principle?
thrustbucket
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (100%)
[quote name='dcfox']So even with the very real possibility that by publishing the book people will die you would still publish it out of principle?[/QUOTE]
Ideally I'd put it up to a company vote.
But looking at the big picture, sending a message to these radical throwbacks that they actually do have power and we actually do fear them, can arguably have much worse consequences.
Ideally I'd put it up to a company vote.
But looking at the big picture, sending a message to these radical throwbacks that they actually do have power and we actually do fear them, can arguably have much worse consequences.
[quote name='thrustbucket']Ideally I'd put it up to a company vote.
But looking at the big picture, sending a message to these radical throwbacks that they actually do have power and we actually do fear them, can arguably have much worse consequences.[/quote]
I doubt that's the message they're getting. On the other couldn't the radicals also view this as another insult from the West giving them more reason to hate the us and incite more radicalism?
But looking at the big picture, sending a message to these radical throwbacks that they actually do have power and we actually do fear them, can arguably have much worse consequences.[/quote]
I doubt that's the message they're getting. On the other couldn't the radicals also view this as another insult from the West giving them more reason to hate the us and incite more radicalism?
fatherofcaitlyn
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 82 (100%)
[quote name='dcfox']I doubt that's the message they're getting. On the other couldn't the radicals also view this as another insult from the West giving them more reason to hate the us and incite more radicalism?[/quote]
Hmm, how best to respond?
...
them.
Hmm, how best to respond?
...
them.thrustbucket
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (100%)
[quote name='dcfox']I doubt that's the message they're getting. On the other couldn't the radicals also view this as another insult from the West giving them more reason to hate the us and incite more radicalism?[/QUOTE]
Attempting to appease the criminally insane is not worth considering.
Attempting to appease the criminally insane is not worth considering.
DarkSageRK
Banned
[quote name='dcfox']So even with the very real possibility that by publishing the book people will die you would still publish it out of principle?[/quote]
I'm going to kill someone if you don't stop posting.
The ball's in your court, foxy.
I'm going to kill someone if you don't stop posting.
The ball's in your court, foxy.
[quote name='DarkSageRK']I'm going to kill someone if you don't stop posting.
The ball's in your court, foxy.[/quote]
If I thought for a second that you would actually kill someone I would stop posting. I'm sure the family of the person you would kill would appreciate that more than me exercising my right to free speech.
The ball's in your court, foxy.[/quote]
If I thought for a second that you would actually kill someone I would stop posting. I'm sure the family of the person you would kill would appreciate that more than me exercising my right to free speech.
[quote name='dcfox']If I thought for a second that you would actually kill someone I would stop posting. I'm sure the family of the person you would kill would appreciate that more than me exercising my right to free speech.[/quote]
Ok, you can exercise your right to cave to the demands of terrorists.
The rest of us however, will continue to post, despite the projected consequences.
You can't do anything about it without becoming a terrorist yourself, a silent protest will still result in people dying. So clearly the only action is to take out your frustration on us for posting right?
No, when someone gives you a choice to either do as they say or innocent people die, you attack the one threatening you.
When the choice is between 100% of all lives saved and the loss of freedom, you shoot for the highest percentage you can and drip blood, sweat, and tears fighting off the one threatening you. Break out your damn nails if you have to.
Too many people these days are too afraid to get a little dirty so they avoid the damn fight altogether and get walked on. They'll cling to whatever shield they believe will save them, even when it is being offered to them by a person who doesn't give two shits about them.
And it will always reach a culmination, that no matter what you do to appease the enemy, you will still lose something dear to you. Will you fight then, once you've already lost something you love?
Or will you stand to defend them now and fight with all you have?
I can guarantee you one thing: I won't have any regrets standing my ground.
~HotShotX
Ok, you can exercise your right to cave to the demands of terrorists.
The rest of us however, will continue to post, despite the projected consequences.
You can't do anything about it without becoming a terrorist yourself, a silent protest will still result in people dying. So clearly the only action is to take out your frustration on us for posting right?
No, when someone gives you a choice to either do as they say or innocent people die, you attack the one threatening you.
When the choice is between 100% of all lives saved and the loss of freedom, you shoot for the highest percentage you can and drip blood, sweat, and tears fighting off the one threatening you. Break out your damn nails if you have to.
Too many people these days are too afraid to get a little dirty so they avoid the damn fight altogether and get walked on. They'll cling to whatever shield they believe will save them, even when it is being offered to them by a person who doesn't give two shits about them.
And it will always reach a culmination, that no matter what you do to appease the enemy, you will still lose something dear to you. Will you fight then, once you've already lost something you love?
Or will you stand to defend them now and fight with all you have?
I can guarantee you one thing: I won't have any regrets standing my ground.
~HotShotX
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='dcfox']So even with the very real possibility that by publishing the book people will die you would still publish it out of principle?[/QUOTE]
Yes. Not only does the constitution say its alright, but to do otherwise, is by definition, giving into terrorism.
Yes. Not only does the constitution say its alright, but to do otherwise, is by definition, giving into terrorism.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='dcfox']So even with the very real possibility that by publishing the book people will die you would still publish it out of principle?[/quote]
I was just reading about a courageous reporter in Italy who stood up against the mafia, even though now he, his family, his friends, and his loved ones are now placed in mortal danger. This author and his publisher - these people are real heroes. Excerpt below
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/27/AR2008062702866.html
Those weren't idle words. Time was when people in America would stand up for their rights on principle. This isn't crying "fire!" in a crowded theater.
I was just reading about a courageous reporter in Italy who stood up against the mafia, even though now he, his family, his friends, and his loved ones are now placed in mortal danger. This author and his publisher - these people are real heroes. Excerpt below
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/27/AR2008062702866.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/27/AR2008062702866.html
People, this is a novel. A work of fiction. Patrick Henry fought for the freedom of his country. That Italian reporter wrote a book exposing the inner workings of the mob. Do you honestly see these things as being equal or does it not matter and it's only the principle you care about?
And honestly, those two examples are even't fair comparisons. Patrick Henry was willing to sacrifice his own life same with the Italian author. If the author of this novel was the only person that was to be affected I would be perfectly fine with letting the book be published. But the truth is she isn't. The people that will be affected will have nothing at all to do with her and her book. They will be innocent bystanders that will have to suffer the consequences of her actions. And nothing gives you right to sacrifice the lives of other people for your own principles.
And honestly, those two examples are even't fair comparisons. Patrick Henry was willing to sacrifice his own life same with the Italian author. If the author of this novel was the only person that was to be affected I would be perfectly fine with letting the book be published. But the truth is she isn't. The people that will be affected will have nothing at all to do with her and her book. They will be innocent bystanders that will have to suffer the consequences of her actions. And nothing gives you right to sacrifice the lives of other people for your own principles.
[quote name='dcfox']And nothing gives you right to sacrifice the lives of other people for your own principles.[/quote]
Once again, you're looking at this from the wrong end. Principle is everything.
Nothing gives THEM the right to sacrifice the lives of other people because we have principles. Despite that, I find it unsurprising that Americans would rather take the path of least resistance and attack their own out of fear, rather than stand their own ground and attack those that are truly trying to squash their freedom.
Let's take an example:
A man has a bomb, and his hand on a dead man's switch, which prevents you from simply killing him. He tells you to to kill another man's wife because her husband believes she can lead a lifestyle beyond being a mother. If you don't comply, he blows up the bomb, killing dozens of people in the same room.
To me, you should be trying to defeat the bomber, not the husband and his wife, no matter how hard it may be. Also, even if you kill the woman, there's still an asshole with a bomb in the room.
~HotShotX
Once again, you're looking at this from the wrong end. Principle is everything.
Nothing gives THEM the right to sacrifice the lives of other people because we have principles. Despite that, I find it unsurprising that Americans would rather take the path of least resistance and attack their own out of fear, rather than stand their own ground and attack those that are truly trying to squash their freedom.
Let's take an example:
A man has a bomb, and his hand on a dead man's switch, which prevents you from simply killing him. He tells you to to kill another man's wife because her husband believes she can lead a lifestyle beyond being a mother. If you don't comply, he blows up the bomb, killing dozens of people in the same room.
To me, you should be trying to defeat the bomber, not the husband and his wife, no matter how hard it may be. Also, even if you kill the woman, there's still an asshole with a bomb in the room.
~HotShotX
Last edited by a moderator:
Principle is not everything. A rational responsible person knows when to defend their principles and when not to. If you want to qualify that as being a coward or taking the path of east resistance than so be it. And you cannot absolve yourself of blame on this. If you choose to act on your principles some of that blame has to fall on you as well.
Your example is doesn't apply to the situation at hand. You're asking me to choose between one life and the lives of many. That's not what's going on here.
Your example is doesn't apply to the situation at hand. You're asking me to choose between one life and the lives of many. That's not what's going on here.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='dcfox']Patrick Henry was willing to sacrifice his own life same with the Italian author. If the author of this novel was the only person that was to be affected I would be perfectly fine with letting the book be published. But the truth is she isn't. The people that will be affected will have nothing at all to do with her and her book. They will be innocent bystanders that will have to suffer the consequences of her actions. And nothing gives you right to sacrifice the lives of other people for your own principles.[/quote]
That's not true, that's not how the mafia operates. In fact, after your kneecaps they threaten your spouse, your kids, your parents, your siblings, your close friends, etc (it's more effective then threatening your life, seeing as you've already put yourself out there) They may plant a bomb that kills innocent bystanders. After all they bomb police stations, court houses, cultural landmarks, museums, whatever it takes to get people to back off.
In this, the mafia are not too different from the radical Muslim fundamentalists. They know how to leverage threats of violence and violent acts to get what they want.
Now, if you want to get into the case of Patrick Henry, he give a courtroom speech in colonial America advocating violent overthrow of the government that ended in the people calling "To arms, to arms!". Are you arguing that he was pitting his lone self against the British Empire?
That's not true, that's not how the mafia operates. In fact, after your kneecaps they threaten your spouse, your kids, your parents, your siblings, your close friends, etc (it's more effective then threatening your life, seeing as you've already put yourself out there) They may plant a bomb that kills innocent bystanders. After all they bomb police stations, court houses, cultural landmarks, museums, whatever it takes to get people to back off.
In this, the mafia are not too different from the radical Muslim fundamentalists. They know how to leverage threats of violence and violent acts to get what they want.
Now, if you want to get into the case of Patrick Henry, he give a courtroom speech in colonial America advocating violent overthrow of the government that ended in the people calling "To arms, to arms!". Are you arguing that he was pitting his lone self against the British Empire?
[quote name='camoor']That's not true, that's not how the mafia operates. In fact, after your kneecaps they threaten your spouse, your kids, your parents, your siblings, your close friends, etc (it's more effective then threatening your life, seeing as you've already put yourself out there) They may plant a bomb that kills innocent bystanders. After all they bomb police stations, court houses, cultural landmarks, museums, whatever it takes to get people to back off.
In this, the mafia are not too different from the radical Muslim fundamentalists. They know how to leverage threats of violence and violent acts to get what they want.
Now, if you want to get into the case of Patrick Henry, he give a courtroom speech in colonial America advocating violent overthrow of the government that ended in the people calling "To arms, to arms!". Are you arguing that he was pitting his lone self against the British Empire?[/quote]
In the story you posted it didn't seem like that was the case with the Mafia. The article made it seem like the mob was only targeting him and his family for the book. Yes the mob kills innocent people but that is not a direct result of the publication of his book.
And with Patrick Henry I wasn't implying he took on the British Empire by himself. What I was trying to convey is that he along with those that chose to ally themselves with him knowingly entered into a situation fully aware of the consequences of their own actions.
My point of contention with the publication of this novel is that it can lead to the violence being inflicted on people who have no direct connection to the author, publisher or the book. People who did not willingly chose to place themselves in this situation.
In this, the mafia are not too different from the radical Muslim fundamentalists. They know how to leverage threats of violence and violent acts to get what they want.
Now, if you want to get into the case of Patrick Henry, he give a courtroom speech in colonial America advocating violent overthrow of the government that ended in the people calling "To arms, to arms!". Are you arguing that he was pitting his lone self against the British Empire?[/quote]
In the story you posted it didn't seem like that was the case with the Mafia. The article made it seem like the mob was only targeting him and his family for the book. Yes the mob kills innocent people but that is not a direct result of the publication of his book.
And with Patrick Henry I wasn't implying he took on the British Empire by himself. What I was trying to convey is that he along with those that chose to ally themselves with him knowingly entered into a situation fully aware of the consequences of their own actions.
My point of contention with the publication of this novel is that it can lead to the violence being inflicted on people who have no direct connection to the author, publisher or the book. People who did not willingly chose to place themselves in this situation.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='dcfox']In the story you posted it didn't seem like that was the case with the Mafia. The article made it seem like the mob was only targeting him and his family for the book. Yes the mob kills innocent people but that is not a direct result of the publication of his book.
And with Patrick Henry I wasn't implying he took on the British Empire by himself. What I was trying to convey is that he along with those that chose to ally themselves with him knowingly entered into a situation fully aware of the consequences of their own actions.
My point of contention with the publication of this novel is that it can lead to the violence being inflicted on people who have no direct connection to the author, publisher or the book. People who did not willingly chose to place themselves in this situation.[/quote]
Is there a specific group of people you are talking about as the targets?
I'll put aside Patrick Henry for now - I disagree with your analysis but it's not as demonstrative or contemporary as the mafia example.
This is a bit old, but I feel it's relevant:
People who did not willingly choose to challenge the mafia were injured and killed as a result of these bombings. Was it a mistake for John Paul II and other public figures to openly repudiate the mafia, seeing as innocent lives were lost as a result?
And with Patrick Henry I wasn't implying he took on the British Empire by himself. What I was trying to convey is that he along with those that chose to ally themselves with him knowingly entered into a situation fully aware of the consequences of their own actions.
My point of contention with the publication of this novel is that it can lead to the violence being inflicted on people who have no direct connection to the author, publisher or the book. People who did not willingly chose to place themselves in this situation.[/quote]
Is there a specific group of people you are talking about as the targets?
I'll put aside Patrick Henry for now - I disagree with your analysis but it's not as demonstrative or contemporary as the mafia example.
This is a bit old, but I feel it's relevant:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A01E4D7103FF936A25754C0A962958260
People who did not willingly choose to challenge the mafia were injured and killed as a result of these bombings. Was it a mistake for John Paul II and other public figures to openly repudiate the mafia, seeing as innocent lives were lost as a result?
DarkSageRK
Banned
[quote name='Heavy Hitter']Random House = spineless.[/quote]
Thread over. You win it.
Thread over. You win it.
thrustbucket
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (100%)
I still think the best course of action would be to let the employees of random house vote (maybe they did?). I do agree that it's wrong to put all employees in danger (the janitor) that had nothing to do with it, so I'd let them vote on whether they want to stand up for principles or cave.
But this mentality of appeasement to people that threaten you is the very reason that ultra right wingers constantly say things like "Liberalism is a mental disorder". What they mean by that is that the extreme left gives in so much to PC and sensitivity shit that they empower those that want to kill them anyway and put their own self preservation in danger and ultimately dig their own grave through trying to do what's not offensive or immediately safe. This goes against nature on a fundamental level. Any other creature on earth, when threatened, takes action.
I'm not saying I agree with right wing nutjobs, but people that say what dcfox is saying, allow me to see that they aren't totally full of shit.
But this mentality of appeasement to people that threaten you is the very reason that ultra right wingers constantly say things like "Liberalism is a mental disorder". What they mean by that is that the extreme left gives in so much to PC and sensitivity shit that they empower those that want to kill them anyway and put their own self preservation in danger and ultimately dig their own grave through trying to do what's not offensive or immediately safe. This goes against nature on a fundamental level. Any other creature on earth, when threatened, takes action.
I'm not saying I agree with right wing nutjobs, but people that say what dcfox is saying, allow me to see that they aren't totally full of shit.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='thrustbucket']But this mentality of appeasement to people that threaten you is the very reason that ultra right wingers constantly say things like "Liberalism is a mental disorder". What they mean by that is that the extreme left gives in so much to PC and sensitivity shit that they empower those that want to kill them anyway and put their own self preservation in danger and ultimately dig their own grave through trying to do what's not offensive or immediately safe. This goes against nature on a fundamental level. Any other creature on earth, when threatened, takes action.[/quote]
Yes, but cuts both ways.
After all, the right of the people to bear arms is usually painted as a conservative issue. However doesn't this right inadvertently put weapons in the hands of people who want to threaten the lives of ordinary citizens for money or obedience? Isn't it more likely that someone who wishes to harm others will have an easier time of getting a gun if they are legalized? Can't you see why a mainstream liberal would think that mainstream conservatives are crazy to (as they would say) 'put guns in the hands of criminals or those who wish us harm'? (Keep in mind I'm all in favor of gun rights - that's not the issue I'm making here)
I'm also little leery of your last sentence, where you posit on the knee-jerk reaction of the animal kingdom to fear. In addition to complex social behavior, primates have a reasoning center - I think it's important to use it so that our response to fear is just. There are problems with being too passive and too aggressive - the trick is finding a happy medium.
Yes, but cuts both ways.
After all, the right of the people to bear arms is usually painted as a conservative issue. However doesn't this right inadvertently put weapons in the hands of people who want to threaten the lives of ordinary citizens for money or obedience? Isn't it more likely that someone who wishes to harm others will have an easier time of getting a gun if they are legalized? Can't you see why a mainstream liberal would think that mainstream conservatives are crazy to (as they would say) 'put guns in the hands of criminals or those who wish us harm'? (Keep in mind I'm all in favor of gun rights - that's not the issue I'm making here)
I'm also little leery of your last sentence, where you posit on the knee-jerk reaction of the animal kingdom to fear. In addition to complex social behavior, primates have a reasoning center - I think it's important to use it so that our response to fear is just. There are problems with being too passive and too aggressive - the trick is finding a happy medium.
thrustbucket
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (100%)
[quote name='camoor']Yes, but cuts both ways.
After all, the right of the people to bear arms is usually painted as a conservative issue. However doesn't this right inadvertently put weapons in the hands of people who want to threaten the lives of ordinary citizens for money or obedience? Isn't it more likely that someone who wishes to harm others will have an easier time of getting a gun if they are legalized? Can't you see why a mainstream liberal would think that mainstream conservatives are crazy to (as they would say) 'put guns in the hands of criminals or those who wish us harm'? (Keep in mind I'm all in favor of gun rights - that's not the issue I'm making here)[/quote]
I actually don't see it that way at all. As long as guns exist, criminals will always have them. So by the same logic, as long as guns exist, good people should be able to have them as well, without breaking the law.
I know that their logic is make guns illegal and criminals will have a harder time getting them, but that isn't reality as I see it. Making drugs illegal doesn't make them hard to get. How many people on these forums regularly take illicit substances?
Of course I was being a little extreme. My point was, that most things on this planet that are alive, and have a brain, when confronted with a clear and present danger, will take action out of self preservation. That action may or may not be violent. I find it somewhat amusing that having a bigger brain, and higher reasoning skills, and being more "enlightened" than the animal kingdom, learning sensitivity, and a desire to be tolerant - can often put us in some very dangerous positions by doing nothing in the face of danger or trying to appease it.
After all, the right of the people to bear arms is usually painted as a conservative issue. However doesn't this right inadvertently put weapons in the hands of people who want to threaten the lives of ordinary citizens for money or obedience? Isn't it more likely that someone who wishes to harm others will have an easier time of getting a gun if they are legalized? Can't you see why a mainstream liberal would think that mainstream conservatives are crazy to (as they would say) 'put guns in the hands of criminals or those who wish us harm'? (Keep in mind I'm all in favor of gun rights - that's not the issue I'm making here)[/quote]
I actually don't see it that way at all. As long as guns exist, criminals will always have them. So by the same logic, as long as guns exist, good people should be able to have them as well, without breaking the law.
I know that their logic is make guns illegal and criminals will have a harder time getting them, but that isn't reality as I see it. Making drugs illegal doesn't make them hard to get. How many people on these forums regularly take illicit substances?
Of course I was being a little extreme. My point was, that most things on this planet that are alive, and have a brain, when confronted with a clear and present danger, will take action out of self preservation. That action may or may not be violent. I find it somewhat amusing that having a bigger brain, and higher reasoning skills, and being more "enlightened" than the animal kingdom, learning sensitivity, and a desire to be tolerant - can often put us in some very dangerous positions by doing nothing in the face of danger or trying to appease it.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='thrustbucket']I actually don't see it that way at all. As long as guns exist, criminals will always have them. So by the same logic, as long as guns exist, good people should be able to have them as well, without breaking the law.
I know that their logic is make guns illegal and criminals will have a harder time getting them, but that isn't reality as I see it. Making drugs illegal doesn't make them hard to get. How many people on these forums regularly take illicit substances?[/quote]
I don't want to stray too far off-topic with the actual impact of gun legislation.
You can see though that the mainstream liberal's argument against gun ownership is a knee-jerk reaction to a fear of guns and a fear of the type of people that they assume will use guns. They respond to that fear with a shrill cry to ban all guns. They are acting out of the instinct of self-preservation.
[quote name='thrustbucket'] Of course I was being a little extreme. My point was, that most things on this planet that are alive, and have a brain, when confronted with a clear and present danger, will take action out of self preservation. That action may or may not be violent. I find it somewhat amusing that having a bigger brain, and higher reasoning skills, and being more "enlightened" than the animal kingdom, learning sensitivity, and a desire to be tolerant - can often put us in some very dangerous positions by doing nothing in the face of danger or trying to appease it.[/quote]
I disagree. Why do you think humans are successful as a species. In part because we (sometimes) don't act out of blind instinct/fear and instead use reason.
You're sitting at a cold war bunker and the machines indicate a lone nuke is screaming in. Do you:
A) Launch the retaliatory nuke! Protocol demands it! Must destroy them before they destroy us!
B) Calm down, take it easy - do I really want to start the nuke war on a mere signal, is it a malfunction, do I obey the chain of command if I'm certain this is not a real event..
I know that their logic is make guns illegal and criminals will have a harder time getting them, but that isn't reality as I see it. Making drugs illegal doesn't make them hard to get. How many people on these forums regularly take illicit substances?[/quote]
I don't want to stray too far off-topic with the actual impact of gun legislation.
You can see though that the mainstream liberal's argument against gun ownership is a knee-jerk reaction to a fear of guns and a fear of the type of people that they assume will use guns. They respond to that fear with a shrill cry to ban all guns. They are acting out of the instinct of self-preservation.
[quote name='thrustbucket'] Of course I was being a little extreme. My point was, that most things on this planet that are alive, and have a brain, when confronted with a clear and present danger, will take action out of self preservation. That action may or may not be violent. I find it somewhat amusing that having a bigger brain, and higher reasoning skills, and being more "enlightened" than the animal kingdom, learning sensitivity, and a desire to be tolerant - can often put us in some very dangerous positions by doing nothing in the face of danger or trying to appease it.[/quote]
I disagree. Why do you think humans are successful as a species. In part because we (sometimes) don't act out of blind instinct/fear and instead use reason.
You're sitting at a cold war bunker and the machines indicate a lone nuke is screaming in. Do you:
A) Launch the retaliatory nuke! Protocol demands it! Must destroy them before they destroy us!
B) Calm down, take it easy - do I really want to start the nuke war on a mere signal, is it a malfunction, do I obey the chain of command if I'm certain this is not a real event..
fatherofcaitlyn
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 82 (100%)
Is dcfox that ignorant?
[quote name='thrustbucket']Huh? When was the last time something like this happened as a result of Christians (Or any other religion) threatening violence? Why is it so important to include other religions when in the last 100 years other religions are not known for making violent threats to get their way?[/QUOTE]
You're smarter than this. Other religions haven't made violent threats to get their way in the last hundred years? At all? Really?
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']C'mon now, Christianity is slammed on a regular basis in the entertainment sector, whether it be books, tv, movies, or music. You occasionally hear about the Vatican asking for a boycott or some other group asking the same thing (McDonalds comes to mind as the most recent). Can you name anything in recent memory that was canned due to an outcry from the Christian community?[/QUOTE]
http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/07/professors-in-c.html -- death threats for teaching evolution
or
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/91269/ -- death threats for blogging about the whole "kidnapped communion wafer" thing
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']That's not comparable by any means. One nut-job, emphasis on nut-job, shoots up a church for personal reasons.[/QUOTE]
Not entirely accurate. The guy's state of mind and lack of accomplices are irrelevant, and the US State and Justice Departments agree. Ted Kaczynski was a lone paranoid schizophrenic and a textbook example of a terrorist. Any time a sub-national entity targets civilians with violence to achieve political goals, it's terrorism.
Now, I could be convinced that it's worthwhile to really look at how we define terrorism in the first place, but it would have to be applied consistently and rationally, but neither trait is in great abundance in these forums, and it's a whole 'nother topic besides.
[quote name='thrustbucket']As I've said in other threads, I tend to be a majority rules guy.[/QUOTE]
"Majority rules" uber ales, huh? I'm reminded of the quote: "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for lunch."
[quote name='thrustbucket']If a coalition of passive Islamic organizations had stated they were offended, and why, and asked nicely to not publish the book, then I'd say maybe. Since they were threatened with violence and caved, I'm going to have to say no.[/QUOTE]
There was no threat. Just the belief that there might be one. Read the article again.
You're smarter than this. Other religions haven't made violent threats to get their way in the last hundred years? At all? Really?
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']C'mon now, Christianity is slammed on a regular basis in the entertainment sector, whether it be books, tv, movies, or music. You occasionally hear about the Vatican asking for a boycott or some other group asking the same thing (McDonalds comes to mind as the most recent). Can you name anything in recent memory that was canned due to an outcry from the Christian community?[/QUOTE]
http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/07/professors-in-c.html -- death threats for teaching evolution
or
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/91269/ -- death threats for blogging about the whole "kidnapped communion wafer" thing
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']That's not comparable by any means. One nut-job, emphasis on nut-job, shoots up a church for personal reasons.[/QUOTE]
Not entirely accurate. The guy's state of mind and lack of accomplices are irrelevant, and the US State and Justice Departments agree. Ted Kaczynski was a lone paranoid schizophrenic and a textbook example of a terrorist. Any time a sub-national entity targets civilians with violence to achieve political goals, it's terrorism.
Now, I could be convinced that it's worthwhile to really look at how we define terrorism in the first place, but it would have to be applied consistently and rationally, but neither trait is in great abundance in these forums, and it's a whole 'nother topic besides.
[quote name='thrustbucket']As I've said in other threads, I tend to be a majority rules guy.[/QUOTE]
"Majority rules" uber ales, huh? I'm reminded of the quote: "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for lunch."
[quote name='thrustbucket']If a coalition of passive Islamic organizations had stated they were offended, and why, and asked nicely to not publish the book, then I'd say maybe. Since they were threatened with violence and caved, I'm going to have to say no.[/QUOTE]
There was no threat. Just the belief that there might be one. Read the article again.
[quote name='trq']
http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/07/professors-in-c.html -- death threats for teaching evolution
or
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/91269/ -- death threats for blogging about the whole "kidnapped communion wafer" thing
Not entirely accurate. The guy's state of mind and lack of accomplices are irrelevant, and the US State and Justice Departments agree. Ted Kaczynski was a lone paranoid schizophrenic and a textbook example of a terrorist. Any time a sub-national entity targets civilians with violence to achieve political goals, it's terrorism.
[/QUOTE]
Nice of you to throw out an article (the 2nd one), or blog rather, that refers to Catholics as "dementedwits."
As far as those death threats go, they are isolated incidents from individuals, you don't have entire sects or churches threatening violence against a a school district, let alone acting on those threats (as some Muslim groups have in Denmark for example). The Mormon church is against gay marriage in California, but they certainly aren't threating violence against any polticians or people who vote in favor of it.
Also, I asked for things that have been stopped due to a protest (not even violence) and the list that you and camoor provided don't fulfill that request. Sure you posted things that Christians might not like, and even protest or boycott. But that hasn't stopped anything from coming to fruitition.
http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/07/professors-in-c.html -- death threats for teaching evolution
or
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/91269/ -- death threats for blogging about the whole "kidnapped communion wafer" thing
Not entirely accurate. The guy's state of mind and lack of accomplices are irrelevant, and the US State and Justice Departments agree. Ted Kaczynski was a lone paranoid schizophrenic and a textbook example of a terrorist. Any time a sub-national entity targets civilians with violence to achieve political goals, it's terrorism.
[/QUOTE]
Nice of you to throw out an article (the 2nd one), or blog rather, that refers to Catholics as "demented
wits." As far as those death threats go, they are isolated incidents from individuals, you don't have entire sects or churches threatening violence against a a school district, let alone acting on those threats (as some Muslim groups have in Denmark for example). The Mormon church is against gay marriage in California, but they certainly aren't threating violence against any polticians or people who vote in favor of it.
Also, I asked for things that have been stopped due to a protest (not even violence) and the list that you and camoor provided don't fulfill that request. Sure you posted things that Christians might not like, and even protest or boycott. But that hasn't stopped anything from coming to fruitition.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']Also, I asked for things that have been stopped due to a protest (not even violence) and the list that you and camoor provided don't fulfill that request. Sure you posted things that Christians might not like, and even protest or boycott. But that hasn't stopped anything from coming to fruitition.[/quote]
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']Can you name anything in recent memory that was canned due to an outcry from the Christian community?[/quote]
Nice try, but your spin attempt is day late dollar short. Outcry =/= protest.
Modern American Christian Evangelists and Fundamentalists operate differently from foreign Muslim fundamentalists, they have much more effective tools at their disposal to make headway on the censorship and theocratic legislation they desire.
Instead of hitting the streets with effigies of Dubya, they twist the legal system to their advantage, using their base to send tons of copy letters and emails to the FCC urging censorship on a wide array of topics they find offensive. They also use their voting bloc power to influence politicians on public policy issues (something Muslim fundies can't do). Democracy is good, but we have to remember it's not mob rule, and minority position citizens do have rights (among them the first amendment).
There's also the emerging problem of spineless corporate censorship - wherein controversial (but worthwhile) points of view are not allowed distribution - not because they wouldn't sell - but because of the risk of economic fallout from mobilized Evangelical Christian, fundamentalist Muslim, Scientologist, etc legal action or boycott. Such as: Clearchannel bowing to the FCC on morality police type censorship to get much more valuable consolidation deal approval.
All I have to say, thank goodness for the series of tubes and net neutrality, long live the internets!
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']Can you name anything in recent memory that was canned due to an outcry from the Christian community?[/quote]
Nice try, but your spin attempt is day late dollar short. Outcry =/= protest.
Modern American Christian Evangelists and Fundamentalists operate differently from foreign Muslim fundamentalists, they have much more effective tools at their disposal to make headway on the censorship and theocratic legislation they desire.
Instead of hitting the streets with effigies of Dubya, they twist the legal system to their advantage, using their base to send tons of copy letters and emails to the FCC urging censorship on a wide array of topics they find offensive. They also use their voting bloc power to influence politicians on public policy issues (something Muslim fundies can't do). Democracy is good, but we have to remember it's not mob rule, and minority position citizens do have rights (among them the first amendment).
There's also the emerging problem of spineless corporate censorship - wherein controversial (but worthwhile) points of view are not allowed distribution - not because they wouldn't sell - but because of the risk of economic fallout from mobilized Evangelical Christian, fundamentalist Muslim, Scientologist, etc legal action or boycott. Such as: Clearchannel bowing to the FCC on morality police type censorship to get much more valuable consolidation deal approval.
All I have to say, thank goodness for the series of tubes and net neutrality, long live the internets!
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='sandaz93']Random House just doesn't want to make a big fuss over their book.
Putting N-Word in a book-Bad PR
Insulting Muslims- Bad PR[/quote]
Good point. Hopefully next they'll stop reprinting Huck Finn.
Putting N-Word in a book-Bad PR
Insulting Muslims- Bad PR[/quote]
Good point. Hopefully next they'll stop reprinting Huck Finn.
[quote name='camoor']Nice try, but your spin attempt is day late dollar short. Outcry =/= protest.
Modern American Christian Evangelists and Fundamentalists operate differently from foreign Muslim fundamentalists, they have much more effective tools at their disposal to make headway on the censorship and theocratic legislation they desire.
Instead of hitting the streets with effigies of Dubya, they twist the legal system to their advantage, using their base to send tons of copy letters and emails to the FCC urging censorship on a wide array of topics they find offensive. They also use their voting bloc power to influence politicians on public policy issues (something Muslim fundies can't do). Democracy is good, but we have to remember it's not mob rule, and minority position citizens do have rights (among them the first amendment).
There's also the emerging problem of spineless corporate censorship - wherein controversial (but worthwhile) points of view are not allowed distribution - not because they wouldn't sell - but because of the risk of economic fallout from mobilized Evangelical Christian, fundamentalist Muslim, Scientologist, etc legal action or boycott. Such as: Clearchannel bowing to the FCC on morality police type censorship to get much more valuable consolidation deal approval.
All I have to say, thank goodness for the series of tubes and net neutrality, long live the internets![/QUOTE]
so youre saying theyre similar because they use the first amendment, vote, spend their money as they see fit.
Modern American Christian Evangelists and Fundamentalists operate differently from foreign Muslim fundamentalists, they have much more effective tools at their disposal to make headway on the censorship and theocratic legislation they desire.
Instead of hitting the streets with effigies of Dubya, they twist the legal system to their advantage, using their base to send tons of copy letters and emails to the FCC urging censorship on a wide array of topics they find offensive. They also use their voting bloc power to influence politicians on public policy issues (something Muslim fundies can't do). Democracy is good, but we have to remember it's not mob rule, and minority position citizens do have rights (among them the first amendment).
There's also the emerging problem of spineless corporate censorship - wherein controversial (but worthwhile) points of view are not allowed distribution - not because they wouldn't sell - but because of the risk of economic fallout from mobilized Evangelical Christian, fundamentalist Muslim, Scientologist, etc legal action or boycott. Such as: Clearchannel bowing to the FCC on morality police type censorship to get much more valuable consolidation deal approval.
All I have to say, thank goodness for the series of tubes and net neutrality, long live the internets![/QUOTE]
so youre saying theyre similar because they use the first amendment, vote, spend their money as they see fit.
bread's done