>>> "what was your response when various Christians objected to "Piss Christ"?"
> Not sure I was around for that one - but I highly doubt I would've participated in a worldwide public shaming of all Christians, which is really what this thing boils down to.
"Piss Christ" was an intentional provocation. Would you have told Christians to get over it?
> > "We're currently saying "we have to avoid anything that might offend Muslims because some of them might go violent"."
> No, that's not what we're saying at all.
Actually, it is. It may not be what you intend to say, but it's what you're saying.
They threaten violence "unless" and you're doing as they demand. Your excuse for doing so doesn't matter.
I'd argue that the lack of blasphemy laws in the US has been an good thing. Arguing for defacto equivalents seems unwise.
However, if you're going to do so, it's unclear why Muslims should be a special case.
So, what are you going to do when another group starts saying "don't say things that we don't like or we'll get violent"?
> That's the line between exercising your freedom, and simply being a jackass.
You seem to think that they're distinct - they're not. Being a jackass is a subset.
However, even if they were, you're saying that given the choice between siding with jackasses and thugs, you'll take thugs.
No - there isn't another option, even if you need one so you can feel good about yourself.
> Not sure I was around for that one - but I highly doubt I would've participated in a worldwide public shaming of all Christians, which is really what this thing boils down to.
"Piss Christ" was an intentional provocation. Would you have told Christians to get over it?
> > "We're currently saying "we have to avoid anything that might offend Muslims because some of them might go violent"."
> No, that's not what we're saying at all.
Actually, it is. It may not be what you intend to say, but it's what you're saying.
They threaten violence "unless" and you're doing as they demand. Your excuse for doing so doesn't matter.
I'd argue that the lack of blasphemy laws in the US has been an good thing. Arguing for defacto equivalents seems unwise.
However, if you're going to do so, it's unclear why Muslims should be a special case.
So, what are you going to do when another group starts saying "don't say things that we don't like or we'll get violent"?
> That's the line between exercising your freedom, and simply being a jackass.
You seem to think that they're distinct - they're not. Being a jackass is a subset.
However, even if they were, you're saying that given the choice between siding with jackasses and thugs, you'll take thugs.
No - there isn't another option, even if you need one so you can feel good about yourself.