• After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.

The Innocence of Muslims video

jova33

jova33

Android Expert
Obviously this video was made to incite people. I've watched it and it was of horrible quality and the inflammatory statements about Islam and Mohammed were dubbed after.

I would like to talk about freedom of speech. Is there a limit? The obvious limits are yelling fire in a crowded theater, making false statements that could ruin someone's career or life, inciting a riot or encouraging illegal actions.
Did the film maker commit a crime?
I feel this goes both ways, and even with the Westboro Baptist Church, it's freedom of speech. As soon as we start arresting people for saying something we don't believe in, then they'll start arresting people for speaking bad about the government.

"I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"

What are your views on this?
 
After a game, if someone is standing on top a police car yelling "kill the police" that's inciting the riot. That is illegal, and isn't protected under freedom of speech
 
OutofDate1980 said:
Funny I thought that a person was a subset of people.
Click to expand...

Not sure where you learned your English Vocabulary but this is inaccurate. People is the pluralization of person. It is grammatically impossible for me to be people. A person can be smart. People are stupid.
 
Anyway, no one feels that their first amendment rights are threatened?
I mean, if the film producers are deemed guilty of a crime, then how far away will it be before it's a crime to speak up about the government? It's like the government hates the constitution.
 
jova33 said:
It's like the government hates the constitution.
Click to expand...

Like? Apparently you have been blind to the laws they've been passing for the past couple of decades. They're not even doing it behind closed doors anymore since most citizens pay no attention.

BTW, I think the fact that Judge Napolitano and other news analysts being investigated by the DoJ for Sedition is a bigger threat to our 1st Amendment right than this stupid video.
 
OstrichSaK said:
Not sure where you learned your English Vocabulary but this is inaccurate. People is the pluralization of person. It is grammatically impossible for me to be people. A person can be smart. People are stupid.
Click to expand...

People - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A people is a plurality of persons considered as a whole, as in an ethnic group or nation. Collectively, for example, Jews are known as "the Jewish people", European Gypsies comprise the bulk of "the Romani people", and Palestinian Arabs have started to be called "the Palestinian people".

Subset - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In mathematics, especially in set theory, a set A is a subset of a set B, or equivalently B is a superset of A, if A is "contained" inside B, that is, all elements of A are also elements of B. A and B may coincide. The relationship of one set being a subset of another is called inclusion or sometimes containment.

Stupid | Define Stupid at Dictionary.com
4. annoying or irritating; troublesome: Turn off that stupid radio
 
OutofDate1980 said:
People - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A people is a plurality of persons considered as a whole, as in an ethnic group or nation. Collectively, for example, Jews are known as "the Jewish people", European Gypsies comprise the bulk of "the Romani people", and Palestinian Arabs have started to be called "the Palestinian people".

Subset - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In mathematics, especially in set theory, a set A is a subset of a set B, or equivalently B is a superset of A, if A is "contained" inside B, that is, all elements of A are also elements of B. A and B may coincide. The relationship of one set being a subset of another is called inclusion or sometimes containment.

Stupid | Define Stupid at Dictionary.com
4. annoying or irritating; troublesome: Turn off that stupid radio
Click to expand...

Copy & pasting the definition doesn't prove your case. In fact, it proves mine.
 
OutofDate1980 said:
It called supporting evidence. You did ask "learned your English Vocabulary".
Click to expand...

Yes, it supports my side (that it's impossible for a single person to be people) so thanks for posting it. It's also ENTIRELY off topic as all of your posts end up being. If you want to discuss the topic the by all means, go for it. If you want to continue posting post after post proving how terrible your reading comprehension ("learned your English vocabulary" is not a question... it's a statement) is then just stop. All you're doing is digging the hole deeper and anyone who can read can see this.
 
You did make the statement "People are stupid", so defining people is relevant. Yes, when I quote, I copy the exact words. I didn't claim a person was a people, but claimed a person is a subset of people. Attacking someone is not addressing your claim that "People are stupid". Did you mean to claim that people you disagree with are stupid ?
 
OutofDate1980 said:
You did make the statement "People are stupid", so defining people is relevant. Yes, when I quote, I copy the exact words. I didn't claim a person was a people, but claimed a person is a subset of people. Attacking someone is not addressing your claim that "People are stupid". Did you mean to claim that people you disagree with are stupid ?
Click to expand...

To anyone else here with a sliver of reading comprehension the expression 'People are stupid' is pretty self explanatory. I'm not going to spend all day explaining simple expressions you don't understand because that's not the topic of this thread.
 
OutofDate1980 said:
You did make the statement "People are stupid", so defining people is relevant. Yes, when I quote, I copy the exact words. I didn't claim a person was a people, but claimed a person is a subset of people. Attacking someone is not addressing your claim that "People are stupid". Did you mean to claim that people you disagree with are stupid ?
Click to expand...

Oh just drop it, its pure semantics and is just taking up posts.
 
ElasticNinja said:
Oh just drop it, its pure semantics and is just taking up posts.
Click to expand...

The title of this thread is "The Innocence of Muslims video". Muslims can be defined as people.

A poster has claimed People are stupid, a derogatory term. History has shown that once a group can be defined in derogatory terms, then extreme harm to said group can be rationalized.
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
Semantics is important.
 
OutofDate1980 said:
The title of this thread is "The Innocence of Muslims video". Muslims can be defined as people.

A poster has claimed People are stupid, a derogatory term. History has shown that once a group can be defined in derogatory terms, then extreme harm to said group can be rationalized.

Semantics is important.
Click to expand...

Now you're stretching and clearly are the epitome of one who overreacts for dramatic affect and attention. Welcome to my ignore list.
 
ElasticNinja said:
Well, I can understand why those who make decisions would easily get annoyed at any constitution, especially ones that are old and hard to change.
Click to expand...

Like the US's 2nd amendment? The reason our founding fathers left that in there is in case the government got too out of hand. They definitely want that one removed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom