freediver wrote on Jun 19^th, 2019 at 6:41pm:


Thats funny FD, I thought the "topic" - apart from attempting petty smears on mothra and Annie by inventing what they said - came down to the question 'would someone involved in a Muhammad-mocking film in the west (either starring in or producing) have any reason to fear for their life (from jihadists)" - to which my unequivocal answer was "no - not a rational one". I then pointed out that youtube and other social media is replete with muhammad and Islam mocking - suggesting that a) people are not cowering from producing Muhammad mocking media and b) it seems to be quite safe.

So thats when we got to goalpost shifting 1 - which was "yeah but what about Hollywood films - there are none of those right??" To which I responded the reason why Hollywood doesn't touch those movies is not due to fear of death, but fear of reputation from the PC police - and I prosecuted this case by referencing the fact that Hollywood also won't touch non-christian culture/religion mocking - particularly pertaining to judaism. You then tried to refute this by coming up with a "top 10" of supposedly "jew mocking" films. Unfortunately, all you came up with was a list of feel-good romantic comedies involving jews. Desperately you then mentioned The Passion of the Christ and (laughably) a vague reference to New York ganster movies - which you just assume involves disparaging references to jews, though no specifics. What you singularly failed to do was come up with anything remotely comparable to the sort of Muhammad/Islam mocking you had in mind, equivalent to say the Innocence of Muslims. So I helpfully referenced a nazi era film called "The Eternal Jew" - and even gave you a synopsis of it, and asked you to consider if anything like that was "do-able" in Hollywood today. Your response was the predictable "me no speaka da English" routine. I interpreted that as "yes Gandalf, you are right - such a proposal would be absolutely proposterous in Hollywood" - in FD speak.

So after that big fail, you moved on to goalpost shifting 2 - which was to abandon the direct contention that Muhammad-mocking movie makers/actors were inherently unsafe from jihadis, and instead did the old switcheroo: posing the rhetorical question "could you guarantee that no western muslim would react violently toa hypothetical Muhammad-mocking film"? - which is exactly as absurd an "argument" as it sounds - and obviously a million miles from being the same as saying that Muhammad mocking actors/producers would have good reason to fear for their lives. No less absurd and flawed as me putting it to you that you couldn't guarantee my next flight would not crash, and that therefore implies that commercial flying is inherently unsafe (which it demonstrably isn't).

So we then arrive at the 3rd and final goalpost shift - which is to change 'western Muhammad-mocking film makers/actors are unsafe per se' to 'western Muhammad-mocking film makers/actors might be unsafe - *IF* they happen to visit certain specific muslim majority countries'. You then laughably invite me to nominate which countries they might be unsafe in.

Thats where we're at FD. As usual you've run out of deflections, or possibly got sick of making them up. You're getting tired of maintaining the ridiculous ruse that my answers have been anything other than clear, measured and direct responses to your exact questions, and now resort to the trusty old "You have spent x pages... [not giving the responses I wanted]".

In other words, pretty much another text book FD thread of incoherence.

freediver wrote on Jun 20^th, 2019 at 1:18pm:


Movies are made on youtube these days FD. There are even youtube "stars". Your original question didn't specify Hollywood - yet thats what you insisted it be about after that.

freediver wrote on Jun 20^th, 2019 at 1:18pm:


I think he was killed for making a movie mocking Muhammad.

Yet, one notorious anecdote doesn't make the practice inherently unsafe - no more so than a single air disaster makes commercial flying inherently unsafe.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 20^th, 2019 at 1:52pm:



Don't play the deluded innocent, laddie. One???

This is the fundamental trouble with trying to dialogue Muslims such as you - being honest is simply not in you. It's contrary to your thought-jihad.  You have been trained to grasp every opportunity to de-contextualise, seize every chance to misrepresent. For you to say that there has been only one 'notorious' case where a mocker or critic of Mohammed has been killed is such a bare-faced, obviously knowing lie that only one such as you, a son of Mohammed, can have the hide to advance it. 

Quote:


Quote:


These were the original proposals presented in the OP. Its worth noting how far the goalposts have changed since then:

1. It has to be a Hollywood film
2. It has to be a "full length feature"
3. the question "would you have any reason to fear assassination" seamlessly evolves into "could you guarantee no muslim in the west would react violently to your film"
4. starring in the film may only be dangerous for you if you travel to certain muslim majority countries - like Afghanistan.

Any others?

freediver wrote on Jun 20^th, 2019 at 8:59pm:


I think you initially meant to say that any Muhammad mocking in just about any artistic form is off limits.

You obviously had to change that as soon as it became obvious to you that this is complete rubbish. Hence 10 pages of goalpost shifting.

freediver wrote on Jun 21^st, 2019 at 12:41pm:


Of course not FD. You said "a movie" - but evidently you really meant a Hollywood film that also had to be a "full length feature". You just forgot to point that out.

You also asked if someone would have any reason to 'fear assassination" if they made one of these Hollywood full length features. But what you actually meant was "could you guarantee that no muslim would react violently to it".

Again, a simple honest ommission I'm sure.

freediver wrote on Jun 21^st, 2019 at 12:41pm:


Of course he does FD. What are we up to now - goalpost shift number 4?

freediver wrote on Jun 21^st, 2019 at 6:52pm:


Thanks FD.

Oh, speaking of slippery, why didn't your original question to either Annie or me ask "Are you free to star in a feature-length film only made by Hollywood" instead of the rather more open-ended "Are you free to star in a movie that makes fun of Muhammad?"

Have you grasped the concept of goal-post shifting yet?

freediver wrote on Jun 21^st, 2019 at 6:52pm:


Sorry FD, you'll have to be more specific - did you "mean what you said" before or after you shifted the goalposts?

Or are you really saying that asking if someone had a reason to fear assassination for making a film is the same as asking for a guarantee that no one in the entire western muslim population would act violently to you starring in a film?

Because if you are, that would be class A fibbing.

freediver wrote on Jun 21^st, 2019 at 6:52pm:


I could certainly give you a long list of amateur videos "starring" all manner of Islamophobes mocking anything and everything Islam related. You should know, heaps of them are posted here.

And thats the problem you have isn't it? When you rhetorically ask if you could safely "star" in a "Muhammad mocking" movie, there is no reason why it couldn't mean one of these. Its then you have to make the criteria absurdly narrow - Hollywood features that literally don't do *ANY* non-christian religion mocking, and so their reluctance is easilly explained by non-jihadi-intimidation reasons. And so by this stage the point you are trying to make is already lost - the argument that pretty much any artistic criticism of Islam is off limits - and its off limits because of the intimidation from the jihadists. But rather than just concede the point, you engage in the most absurd goal-post shifting exercise, and pretend - apparently with a straight face - that when you originally asked completely open-endedly about "a movie" - you really meant something absurdly specific.