'Everybody Draw Muhammad Day' Advocate Rattled by Death Threat

[bloodyminded]

Again: His essay, The Responsibility of Intellectuals came out in 1967. This was his first big rant about Viet-nam. Again: the year was 1967. America was only in Viet-Nam as advisors in 1964 (had been since 1959). The USMC arrived in Da Nang in 1965 starting the 'official' US portion of the war.

In fact, he was a political activist earlier. I'm only correcting your error--a trivial error, but one you stubbornly insist upon maintaining. For bizarre reasons known only to yourself.

You even emphasize the year: 1967.

He was an activist prior to this. Can you understand these seven words? Do you have any refutation beyond, "He wrote an essay in 1967"?

Edited July 19, 2010 by bloodyminded

[DogOnPorch]

Leaving aside your errors about US involvement of Vietnam (the "advisors" were carry our military attacks...as if military attacks aren't happening so long as the word "official" isn't used, and that the military action remained "advisement" until Johnson declared an alteration of objective reality)...you keep harping on Chomsky's famous essay, as if that's the start of his "political activism" (your term).

But in fact, he was a political activist earlier. I'm only correcting your error--a trivial error, but one you stubbornly insist upon maintaining. For bizarre reasons known only to yourself.

You're simply full of sh!t as usual. American involvement in Viet-Nam started in 1945 if you want to get 'technical'. But if you have the USMC arriving in Da Nang earlier than 1965, you're stupider than I think you already are.

[bloodyminded]

You're simply full of sh!t as usual. American involvement in Viet-Nam started in 1945 if you want to get 'technical'. But if you have the USMC arriving in Da Nang earlier than 1965, you're stupider than I think you already are.

If you don't know that American military actions were occurring, in South Vietnam, in 1964, then your ignorance is astounding.

Apparently you believe that military action was "advisement" until Johnson altered objective reality through Presidential fiat, using the word "official" as a magic wand.

And have you yet conceded the idiocy of your stubborness about "political activism" being soley defined by a essay?

Edited July 19, 2010 by bloodyminded

[DogOnPorch]

If you don't know that American military actions were occurring, in South Vietnam, in 1964, then your ignorance is astounding.

You're a moron. The Americans made contact with Ho in 1945 re: our old pals the Japanese.

Apparently you believe that military action was "advisement" until Johnson altered objective reality through Presidential fiat, using the word "official" as a magic wand.

Americans saw combat pre: 1965 mainly as helicopter pilots.

And have you yet conceded the idiocy of your stubborness about "political activism" being soley defined by a essay?

So now you're saying Prof Chomsky didn't write said essay in 1967? So when did he write it, bonebrain? Or did he even write it? Perhaps I wrote it back in 1967 and left it as a plant to fool you in 2010. Did manwalk on the Moon? Were the Beatles British?

[bloodyminded]

Americans saw combat pre: 1965 mainly as helicopter pilots.

So there was no American military action before 1965...except for the American military action that occurred before 1965.

I don't know whether you should hire an editor or a PR specialist.

So now you're saying Prof Chomsky didn't write said essay in 1967? So when did he write it, bonebrain? Or did he even write it? Perhaps I wrote it back in 1967 and left it as a plant to fool you in 2010. Did manwalk on the Moon? Were the Beatles British?

You are so terrified of being proven wrong. So you must live in a state of perpetual fear.

Let's pretend for the moment that you're illiterate, rather than a cringing and pathetic little liar, and let me educate you on basic English and the wonders of discrete points in time:

I'm not saying he didn't write the essay in 1967.

Where did you get this idea, anyway?

I was responding to your claim that the writing of the essay, in '67, constitutes the start of his political activism.

When in fact, he had been directly involved in political activism well before he wrote the essay.

Can you honestly not understand this?

Or are you a liar?

Those are your only two choices: so choose.

Edited July 19, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Remiel]

This thread has gotten way off track. I think we should instate an " Everybody Marry Outside Your Race Day " .

[DogOnPorch]

So there was no American military action before 1965...except for the American military action that occurred before 1965.

That you get the timeline of the war in Indochina wrong isn't my problem. I'd suggest the 10,000 Day War for Viet-Nam 101 but you'd no doubt feel it was some sort of propaganda.

You are so terrified of being proven wrong. So you must live in a state of perpetual fear.

Let's pretend for the moment that you're illiterate, rather than a cringing and pathetic little liar, and let me educate you on basic English and the wonders of discrete points in time:

I'm not saying he didn't write the essay in 1967.

Where did you get this idea, anyway?

I was responding to your claim that the writing of the essay, in '67, constitutes the start of his political activism.

When in fact, he had been directly involved in political activism well before he wrote the essay.

Can you honestly not understand this?

Or are you a liar?

Those are your only two choices: so choose.

You're just being obtuse. If I say the sky is blue, you claim it's SKY blue and that I don't know anything about the colour blue.

[DogOnPorch]

This thread has gotten way off track. I think we should instate an " Everybody Marry Outside Your Race Day " .

We should marry outside the human race? To what exactly? Wombats?

[DogOnPorch]

Please let it be wombats...

[bloodyminded]

That you get the timeline of the war in Indochina wrong isn't my problem. I'd suggest the 10,000 Day War for Viet-Nam 101 but you'd no doubt feel it was some sort of propaganda.

I said there was American military operations occurring in vietnam in 1964.

You (after much huffing and puffing) contradicted your earlier claim and conceded the point.

Now you've reverted again.

You're just being obtuse. If I say the sky is blue, you claim it's SKY blue and that I don't know anything about the colour blue.

Let's look at this "debate" another way: Are you claiming that Chomsky was not a political activist before his '67 essay?

And if that is your claim (which, by the way, it is), how do you come to this conclusion?

[DogOnPorch]

I said there was American military operations occurring in vietnam in 1964.

You (after much huffing and puffing) contradicted your earlier claim and conceded the point.

Now you've reverted again.

Let's look at this "debate" another way: Are you claiming that Chomsky was not a political activist before his '67 essay?

And if that is your claim (which, by the way, it is), how do you come to this conclusion?

No wonder you have no friends.

[bloodyminded]

No wonder you have no friends.

Can't answer the question, eh, little guy?

[DogOnPorch]

Can't answer the question, eh, little guy?

You have no questions...just an opinion.

[Remiel]

We should marry outside the human race? To what exactly? Wombats?

Well, there was one particularly lovely looking wombat at the Metro Toronto Zoo that caught my eye...

But in all seriousness, you should probably refer to the " When Miscegenation Backfires " thread in the Health forum to understand the context of my comment.

[DogOnPorch]

Well, there was one particularly lovely looking wombat at the Metro Toronto Zoo that caught my eye...

But in all seriousness, you should probably refer to the " When Miscegenation Backfires " thread in the Health forum to understand the context of my comment.

No worries re: context.

[bloodyminded]

You have no questions...just an opinion.

Ah...you are having literacy problems.

You see, this is not an opinion:

Are you claiming that Chomsky was not a political activist before his '67 essay?

But it certainly is a question.

Now that this has been cleared up for you, you may answer it.

[dre]

I dunno what anyone is complaining about here.

Clearly that facebook page was designed to provoke muslims... and now people are crying because it worked? Talk about fuckin stupid.

Look... a lot of religious people are irrational and its dangerous to provoke them. Insulting whatever magic skygod fantasy they believe in makes them angry. So if you insist on doing it, then thats fine, but dont act suprised when the magic-skygod-believers you insulted focus their religiously motivated angst on you.

These arent people you wanna fuck around... they believe in ellaborate implausible fair tales, and mythology. They dont think critically or rationally, and they are highly subseptible to "US VS THEM" Group Think.

Its best to just not provoke them, or at least to make sure you do it anonymously.

[DogOnPorch]

DRE: Look... a lot of religious people are irrational and its dangerous to provoke them. Insulting whatever magic skygod fantasy they believe in makes them angry. So if you insist on doing it, then thats fine, but dont act suprised when the magic-skygod-believers you insulted focus their religiously motivated angst on you.

I see. Don't provoke Hitler...he'll only get mad.

As well...here's a project for you.

List 10 religiously motivated angsts by each religion and we'll compare them. Up to it?

I'll get you started...here's one from today.

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2010/08/07/aid-workers-killed-afghanistan.html

Ten aid workers executed for spreading 'Christianity'.

[bush_cheney2004]

Look... a lot of religious people are irrational and its dangerous to provoke them....

So how would we we know which ones not to "provoke"....or what exactly "provokes" them. Your stance would mean not "provoking" anyone.....for any reason...like saying Marvel comics are better than DC.

[DogOnPorch]

....like saying Marvel comics are better than DC

OK, that's it. (Rolls up sleaves) Here we go!

(dust-up folows...comics a-flyin')

[dre]

I see. Don't provoke Hitler...he'll only get mad.

As well...here's a project for you.

List 10 religiously motivated angsts by each religion and we'll compare them. Up to it?

I'll get you started...here's one from today.

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2010/08/07/aid-workers-killed-afghanistan.html

Ten aid workers executed for spreading 'Christianity'.

I never said "dont provoke". I do it all the time. I said if you intentionally provoke people dont be suprised when they provoke you back. Especially when you know those people are prone to irrational thoughts and behavior.

[DogOnPorch]

I never said "dont provoke". I do it all the time. I said if you intentionally provoke people dont be suprised when they provoke you back. Especially when you know those people are prone to irrational thoughts and behavior.

If I intentionally get Hitler angry...don't be surprised if he invades my country. Got it.

[dre]

If I intentionally get Hitler angry...don't be surprised if he invades my country. Got it.

Got it.

Yeah... no.

[DogOnPorch]

So what ARE you saying then? It sounds like let's let sleeping dogs lie.

[dre]

So what ARE you saying then? It sounds like let's let sleeping dogs lie.

Just read my post... its absolutely clear what Im saying, and it has nothing to do with sleeping dogs.