Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic - Muslims Allowed to Attack People for Insulting Mohammad

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

Muslims Allowed to Attack People for Insulting Mohammad
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

Leon

Joined: 31 May 2010

Posted: Sun Mar 04, 2012 11:27 pm Post subject:

Steelrails wrote:

Quote:

Again, you must be doing something wrong. I haven't faced these situations, and I think that's pretty normal.

Well until you do face those situations, maybe not be so preachy?

I do agree with you though that as an English Teacher in Korea, getting into fights here is pretty ridiculous and seriously calls into question what one is doing, but not every situation is 'ESL Teacher in Korea.'

Quote:

Beating up other people if your a leader on a sports team is dumb and obviously bad for teamwork, benching someone or kicking them off the team is the obvious right answer there.

Never have played hockey have you? Or any serious organize team contact sport I take it. You don't bench or kick off a talented player just because he runs his mouth during practice or game time.

And you have to show "fight". If you don't show fight, you don't have near the respect. Fights bring a team together. I take it since you don't understand how, you've never been there and don't really know.

Sure let your play do the talking, but there are times when someone on the other team is just running their mouth or a teammate just becomes a cancer and you have to stand and fight.

So you'd be the guy that would sit on the bench while the rest of your teammates run onto the field and brawl? If someone talked a bunch of smack to your team's bench you wouldn't get in their face and maybe give em a shove?

Quote:

Neighborhood, again go to the police

Hello police, this guy just teased me.

What are they going to do? Respond in two hours? And yeah, running to the cops for something like that will work out well. Totally don't see any retaliation for that.

Leon, you're seriously drifting off into naive territory and coming across as someone who hasn't had to live in that world where you have to fight and the law isn't there to give a crap, nor do the people talking smack give a crap about the law. Everything you say is true for normal safe, middle-class society.

I personally don't like the police and would personally never go to them. In America many people in my circle are, or were, drug dealers. Not bragging about it, but these are some of the people I grew up with and some are friends of friends. If I ever had a real problem with someone, I wouldn't go to the police, but it would be taken care of. Most people don't have that, and I believe that going to the police is the smart thing to do. I don't have that problem because I'm a likable guy who doesn't anger people, and know how to stay out of stupid situations.

I also know that if you punch the wrong person in the "neighborhood" they will kill you, or beat you up way worse than you would want. You can never know about the person you are dealing with's capacity for violence. And they know where you live. I've seen what happens to tough guys who aren't really all that tough. If your neighbor teases you, than maybe there's something wrong with you that causes you to be a target, or maybe you should realize that getting upset about being teased is childish.

cwflaneur

Joined: 04 Aug 2009

Posted: Sun Mar 04, 2012 11:47 pm Post subject:

Steelrails wrote:

Quote:

Neighborhood, again go to the police

If only we could do it the Korean way. You know how these drunk ajoshi scuffles that you occasionally see on the streets or the Metro are resolved, don't you? A lawyer friend of mine assures me it usually ends with a mutual decision to go the nearest police station, where they accuse each other of who said and did what to whom. The cops hear them out and then command them to hug and make up. Just like kids.

Hey, it works for them...

fermentation

Joined: 22 Jun 2009

Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2012 12:00 am Post subject:

caniff wrote:

I realize this is the internet that is fully populated by supermen/ladies/douches, but could your attitude be a result of the fact that you don't know how to throw a punch or that you don't have the stare that says you are ready to throw down if need be?

Well I definitely don't look like a tough guy but everytime I have been serious about throwing down the instigator always backed down. Quite revealing of the person who tries to start a fight without any intent to finish it. I also think a tough guy attitude goes further than actually knowing how to fight. As for knowing how to throw a punch, if I knew how I probably would have finished off my opponent instead of losing a stupid split decision. Argh That's gonna eat away at me until I fight that guy again or at least get to spar him.

Quote:

Well, harassment and legitimates threats are one thing and insults are another. If someone ever laid hands on me, that's were I personally draw the line.

People interpret and respond to things differently. What's merely an insult to you may be serious disrespect to others. There are cultural aspects as well. Most Americans may brush off "your mom jokes" but I know plenty of Korean guys who would want to wring your neck for that. A lot of Koreans will also probably get pissed off if you make fun of Korea, I wouldn't give a rat's ass. There's also a difference between how you insult someone and how well you know said person. Like a mom joke by a friend is different from someone I just met calling my mother a *beep*. I'd take the latter just the same as someone putting their dukes up.

Kuros

Joined: 27 Apr 2004

Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2012 9:24 am Post subject:

Steelrails wrote:

Kuros wrote:

recessiontime wrote:

In every thread we can see what the law is and what steelrails opinion of what he thinks the law should be.

As opposed to you guys who are strict interpreters? Oh and by the way the law leaned to my side in this instance, meaning I'm closer to "is" than you are.

What? At first I thought you were just stubborn. Which is fine. Now I'm beginning to question your reading comprehension abilities.

Look, I was going to let it go, but that Indiana case you cited? It has to do with employment law and wrongful discharge. The harassment it talks about is sexual harassment, and has nothing to do with assault or the First Amendment.

You wouldn't have any idea what law applies, and not simply because you don't have the training, inclination, or talent to find out, but you sabotage yourself well before you can even begin to engage the law. See, you don't take the time to understand the facts. TUM had to come down here, you know, TUM, your erstwhile ally?, to correct you and let you know that there was no harassment in this case. The atheist didn't get in the Muslim's face. No, he was marching in a Zombie Muhammed costume when the Muslim apparently attacked him from behind. Nevertheless, here you are citing a case about sexual harassment to support your already moot argument in favor of harassers of religions getting beat downs in the streets.

This thread is not an isolated incident. It is part of a long case study of you failing when it comes to matters of the law. Again, I don't want anyone to think that the law is easy or that I'm correcting you for mere error. Everyone is going to make mistakes. But you don't even try to get the basic facts right. You're too busy trying to shoehorn the thread topic to fit your ideologies, that you don't even notice the simple facts of the case, and are too far-flung and busy arguing stuff that has become so tangential so long ago that you apparently are unable to engage our arguments.

Steelrails wrote:

Exactly. People would understand that there would be potential consequences for running one's mouth. If they ran their mouth and then cowered when challenged, they would be ridiculed and mocked. No one would give them any sympathy.

That's the big thing that really gets me- People who run their mouths or mock others and then cower and whine and cry like babies when someone stands up to them.

Again and again, we see Steelrails supporting tyranny and brute force over lawfully protected discourse and legal process. We saw it in the threads (off-topic and CE) related to foreclosures. Rather than engage with the multiple and documented abuses by banks, Steelrails wanted to take a pound of flesh out of people who ALLEGEDLY defaulted on their mortgage obligations. I mean forget that these people had put their houses up as security for their payments, that wasn't enough for Steelrails! Lenders could make the most ridiculous and greedy terms, but god forbid borrowers miss a payment. If they did: it meant war, according to Steelrails, and jail time, even though absent fraud default on a private contract rarely if ever entails jail time under the law. But as he did in those threads, and like Reagan with his cadillac welfare-queens, Steelrails has constructed a completely contrived caricature to argue against. Yes, damn you guys who are supportive of people running their mouths off and then crying like girly-men. I can't believe you are still braying about your weeny 1st Amendment, you spineless cowards!

But what really gets to me about Steelrails is he doesn't engage his opponents. He merely quotes them and rants on, thereby constructing the appearance that he actually cares a mote about what his opponents say. If Steelrails were able to receive others' arguments and process them, things would be a lot more productive. But instead he pushes thread after thread to a far higher page count than necessary, relying on our presumption (useless as applied to him) that if we explain the same thing enough times and provide enough support, maybe Steelrails will come around to at least post something relevant or sensible or even illustrate some argumentative capacity beyond that needed by someone ranting at scribbles carved into a public bathroom stall.

So now I hope you understand that when Steelrails calls me a strict interpreter of the law AND THEN IN THE NEXT SENTENCE someone who isn't even close to the law, I'm not about to directly engage the nonsense inherent in that argument. I'll just rant and rave because its (a) what Steely would do, (b) its more fun and faster really, (c) its about as productive a response, anyway.

cwflaneur

Joined: 04 Aug 2009

Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2012 12:43 pm Post subject:

Bam! Let's Get Physical

Steelrails

Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System

Posted: Tue Mar 06, 2012 12:08 am Post subject:

Quote:

Now I'm beginning to question your reading comprehension abilities.

Look, I was going to let it go, but that Indiana case you cited? It has to do with employment law and wrongful discharge. The harassment it talks about is sexual harassment, and has nothing to do with assault or the First Amendment.

Before you question mine, look at yours.

I cited that case as an example of the courts using the idea of "Equal Opportunity Offender" and to illustrate that such a concept does exist in law.

I mentioned this because I was stating the difference between someone mocking Islam specifically and someone mocking a variety of religious figures. There is a significant difference in such behavior.

Go read what I wrote again. In fact I agreed that the guy deserved stiffer penalties specifically because it was an equal opportunity offense vs. one targeted specifically at Muslims.

Quote:

This thread is not an isolated incident. It is part of a long case study of you failing when it comes to matters of the law. Again, I don't want anyone to think that the law is easy or that I'm correcting you for mere error. Everyone is going to make mistakes. But you don't even try to get the basic facts right. You're too busy trying to shoehorn the thread topic to fit your ideologies, that you don't even notice the simple facts of the case, and are too far-flung and busy arguing stuff that has become so tangential so long ago that you apparently are unable to engage our arguments.

So go get what I wrote correct before you rant and rave and say I'm not getting the facts correct.

As I clearly stated here

Steelrails wrote:

Oh I agree that it should not have been legal in that situation given that it was part of of a parade and they were mocking other religions as well, making them equal-opportunity offenders. I already said that. I think when you take both of those into account it calls for a normal sentence.

So please, get YOUR facts straight. csflaneur then discounted the "Equal Opportunity Offender" defense as having any basis in law. In any facet of law, not just as it pertained to this incident.

So please, go re-read what I wrote and get it right next time.

Quote:

The fact is the law did not agree with YOU, sir, and incidentally me as well. So YOU got it wrong as well.

Quote:

Again and again, we see Steelrails supporting tyranny and brute force over lawfully protected discourse and legal process.

There's a difference between legal, moral, and realistic ways of viewing things.

Legally its wrong to sock someone for calling your mother a *beep*. Morally? Realistically?

Before you make this solely about me, remember several other posters have taken a "I don't care what the law is, in certain situations you fight" approach.

It's not that you aren't right, it's just posters in this legalistic vein are incredibly naive about how power works and human nature. You do realize there are people who don't care about the law and situations wher the law won't be there to help you, right?

cwflaneur

Joined: 04 Aug 2009

Posted: Tue Mar 06, 2012 1:08 am Post subject:

Steelrails wrote:

csflaneur then discounted the "Equal Opportunity Offender" defense as having any basis in law. In any facet of law, not just as it pertained to this incident.

Pardon me but I didn't actually say that. I said something to the effect (and sorry if I was unclear) that it shouldn't make a difference in cases like this. You're taking something that might be relevant to harassment cases and extending the concept to a case that only concerns public acts of free speech. I don't think the concept has that kind of elasticity.

This is just part of your attempt to blur the lines between harassment and legally protected blasphemy. The only "harasser" in this case was the Muslim man who assaulted someone. If anything, sentence him more stiffly for not being an "equal opportunity offender", as he singled out the anti-Mohammed person but left the anti-Pope person alone. (Does that sound like nonsense? No more than your interpretation.)

Also, I just googled the phrase "equal opportunity offender" and the first result is from Urban Dictionary. The other results don't appear to be anything particularly academic or legalistic. Doesn't seem like the term has much provenance. If it's really being used in courts then that's sad. It should be expunged from the idiom and replaced with some less ugly and ridiculous phrase.

Steelrails

Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System

Posted: Tue Mar 06, 2012 5:02 am Post subject:

Quote:

The number of religions being mocked at one time is 100% irrelevant to the sentence; neither the law nor the courts have any business dictating that sort of criteria.

Well, your sentence was worthy of the 2nd Amendment in how it was open to varying interpretations. I say this in bemusement at the irony, nothing personal-

Quote:

. You're taking something that might be relevant to harassment cases and extending the concept to a case that only concerns public acts of free speech.

Well I think harassment is certainly relevant when people are looking at free speech. I mean, is harassment not related to limits of speech?

Quote:

Also, I just googled the phrase "equal opportunity offender" and the first result is from Urban Dictionary.

The Urban Dictionary is not the end. Try looking a little deeper.

The fact that the phrase is used is because it is crucial to determining whether a member of a protected group is being harassed on the basis of belonging to that group. In a non-legal context it is often used to defend edgy comedians who target everyone with a barrage of racial/sexual/religious humor.

Quote:

The only "harasser" in this case was the Muslim man who assaulted someone. If anything, sentence him more stiffly for not being an "equal opportunity offender", as he singled out the anti-Mohammed person but left the anti-Pope person alone. (Does that sound like nonsense? No more than your interpretation.)

Which is why I said he probably deserves the full sentence. At last post that was my conclusion on the guy. I also said that such instances should be left up to individual police and judges, as they often are. Also if the judge decided to give the guy a slap on the wrist I would not necessarily be opposed. It really all depends.

Then after that there are my moral and realist looks on the situation.

Kuros

Joined: 27 Apr 2004

Posted: Tue Mar 06, 2012 10:49 am Post subject:

Steelrails wrote:

So please, get YOUR facts straight. csflaneur then discounted the "Equal Opportunity Offender" defense as having any basis in law. In any facet of law, not just as it pertained to this incident.

Apply this "law" to the facts. How could the atheist parading in a zombie Mohammed costume be an equal opportunity offender to the Muslim who acted to strangle him?

Steelrails wrote:

I mentioned this because I was stating the difference between someone mocking Islam specifically and someone mocking a variety of religious figures. There is a significant difference in such behavior.

I want you to pay very close attention to the facts. Do I have your attention? Good.

Quote:

Perce, Pennsylvania director of the group American Atheists, said he�s received more than 500 death threats in recent days. He marched in the parade along with a man dressed as a zombie pope.

Now how do you construe marching in a parade as zombie Muhammed ALONGSIDE A MAN DRESSED AS A ZOMBIE POPE as mocking Islam specifically? The parade mocked a variety of religious figures AND IN THE SAME ZOMBIE ASPECT.

This is precisely what I meant:

Kuros wrote:

You're too busy trying to shoehorn the thread topic to fit your ideologies, that you don't even notice the simple facts of the case, and are too far-flung and busy arguing stuff that has become so tangential so long ago that you apparently are unable to engage our arguments.

I will not be thrown onto a tangential point. So how does your equitable theory of unclean hands apply to the case at hand?

--------------

csflaneur wrote:

Steelrails wrote:
csflaneur then discounted the "Equal Opportunity Offender" defense as having any basis in law. In any facet of law, not just as it pertained to this incident.

Pardon me but I didn't actually say that. I said something to the effect (and sorry if I was unclear) that it shouldn't make a difference in cases like this.

LOL.

cwflaneur

Joined: 04 Aug 2009

Posted: Tue Mar 06, 2012 12:08 pm Post subject:

Kuros wrote:

Steelrails has conceded that point... but he keeps on using the "equal opportunity offender" thing to blur the distinction between blasphemy and harassment.

Steelrails wrote:

The fact that the phrase is used is because it is crucial to determining whether a member of a protected group is being harassed on the basis of belonging to that group.

I get that. Therefore, it's irrelevant to the case, as the attacker was not being harassed. The atheists were not on trial for harassing anyone.

It's not a question of whether only Muslims were being harassed or whether Muslims and Catholics were both being harassed. No one was being harassed by the people in costumes.

The atheists had just as much right to be disrespectful to Islam specifically, if they had so chosen. So why are you obfuscating the issue, attempting to make it seem as if anyone but the man who resorted to assault and physical intimidation was a harasser?

Steelrails

Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System

Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2012 9:44 am Post subject:

Quote:

but he keeps on using the "equal opportunity offender" thing to blur the distinction between blasphemy and harassment.

If your boss and some of his pals showed up during Halloween dressed as the Prophet Muhammed and mocked Muslim practices, that would probably be seen as workplace harassment to a person of Muslim descent, right?

Now if they came up dressed as a variety of religious figures, they could probably mount an equal opportunity defense, correct?

So I think said issues are at least "in play" and worth examining in the context of this case. Now, do they override our traditional freedoms of self-expression?

Quote:

Therefore, it's irrelevant to the case, as the attacker was not being harassed. The atheists were not on trial for harassing people.

Is someone being harassed allowed to physically retaliate? One could certainly make an argument that they are.

Did the person who attacked the man feel he was being harassed? Depends on his frame of mind. It sounds to me like in this instance, he was doing it more as obedience to his religion, which I don't think is a valid defense. However if he felt intimidated or harassed (even in a public place) then there might be a difference.

Remember, much of what I said was in response to the beginning where people put such a firm barrier of "no violence ever, no matter the situation, and no limitations on speech" when it came to people expressing opinions about religion. Well, clearly that's not true. There are limitations on speech regarding people's religion. And there are times when I believe that violence is allowed in response to words. Now the issue is where to draw those lines and that's certainly something worth debating.

Quote:

So why are you obfuscating the issue

It's not obfuscating, it's examining.

Quote:

How could the atheist parading in a zombie Mohammed costume be an equal opportunity offender to the Muslim who acted to strangle him?

The atheist was an equal opportunity offender because there were other people in the parade dressed as religious figures. That meant they weren't attacking a specific religion

Quote:

Yes, that's exactly what I mentioned and why the guy who got attacked was an equal opportunity offender and there should have been a different outcome.

Go read what I said.

Kuros

Joined: 27 Apr 2004

Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2012 10:00 am Post subject:

Steelrails wrote:

Quote:

So why are you obfuscating the issue

It's not obfuscating, it's examining.

Its obfuscating. You're changing the facts on the record.

cwflaneur

Joined: 04 Aug 2009

Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2012 8:21 pm Post subject:

Steelrails wrote:

The atheist was an equal opportunity offender because there were other people in the parade dressed as religious figures. That meant they weren't attacking a specific religion

The corollary of this is that the attacker should get off lightly if the atheists in the parade had been non-violently, non-harassingly attacking only one religion instead of two. I reject this completely, as should anyone who values the 1st Amendment.

TheUrbanMyth

Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired

Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2012 8:50 pm Post subject:

cwflaneur wrote:

Steelrails wrote:

The atheist was an equal opportunity offender because there were other people in the parade dressed as religious figures. That meant they weren't attacking a specific religion

How do you attack someone non-violently and non-harassingly? More to the point what is he doing that is illegal?

cwflaneur

Joined: 04 Aug 2009

Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2012 9:39 pm Post subject:

TheUrbanMyth wrote:

cwflaneur wrote:

Steelrails wrote:

The atheist was an equal opportunity offender because there were other people in the parade dressed as religious figures. That meant they weren't attacking a specific religion

How do you attack someone non-violently and non-harassingly? More to the point what is he doing that is illegal?

Ugh, read more carefully (I bolded a word in the quote above to help you out) and see what I've been saying post after post in this thread. Geezus.

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next
Page 6 of 7

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe