What Pam Gellar did is akin to....

[Tommy_Carcetti]

Last edited Mon May 4, 2015, 12:53 PM - Edit history (2)

....someone chumming the water of a popular beach in order to warn people about the dangers of sharks.

On Edit, because sadly I have to:

http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/94703/the-difference-between-an-analogy-and-a-metaphor

No, I am not calling Muslims sharks.

[smokey nj]

1. I think that's a great analogy.

[FLPanhandle]

2. Because we should never do anything to upset religious fundamentalists.

The stupidity around here sometimes...

[Tommy_Carcetti]

3. If your willful actions to provoke puts innocent people in danger, then yes.

Hell, that's pretty close to depraved heart murder in my book.

[cherokeeprogressive]

4. Putting crayons to paper is depraved heart murder.

Mmmmkay.

[FLPanhandle]

7. Tell that to Malala Yousafzai's school

Purposely provoking religious fundamentalists by educating girls and putting them in danger.

What a kowtowing submissive attitude to religious fundamentalism.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

45. What's the end game?

With Malala, the end game was to give girls in conservative Muslim countries the right to an education, even that offended the cultural sensibilities of some.

With Pam Gellar, the end game is merely Pam Gellar trying to justify her own paranoid delusions, with the First Amendment being a convenient excuse (even if it does technically apply, and it does.)

[stranger81]

55. Exactly.

The group that has offended extremists for the purpose of educating women deserves support.

The group that has offended extremists simply for the sake of causing offense, without any other redeeming social value, deserves no support.

[FLPanhandle]

65. Bullshit

A right to stand up to religious fundamentalists and their attacks are only allowed if we like the person doing it and we judge their motives pure?

What a crock.

[stranger81]

71. Goalpost shifting.

Both groups clearly have the RIGHT in this country to say what they wish. No one is questioning that.

What people are questioning, myself included, is the wisdom and utility of exercising that right. If the right is being exercised for no reason other than to poke a stick in someone's eye, why do it? And why support that content?

I see this as no different from the Westboro Baptist situation. I support their RIGHT to protest. I simply think they're mean spirited idiots for exercising that right in the manner they've chosen.

[FLPanhandle]

77. "Why do it?"

You do it because religious groups are trying to stop it, that's enough of a reason.

You stand against groups pressuring folks to conform to their belief system whether its Mohammad cartoons or gay marriage or not having creationism taught in schools.

Your whole "let's play nice and don't purposely offend someone" is submitting to their bullying.

[FLPanhandle]

58. Just when I thought you had hit rock bottom...

First you argue we shouldn't upset fundamentalists.

Then you argue, only upset them if we have a "good" reason.

Sigh.

Either people have a right to stand up to bullying fundamentalists behavior or they don't.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

62. You're strawmanning it, buddy.

I never said we should never do anything to upset fundamentalists. That would be pretty much impossible even if we tried.

I'm saying we should never intentionally create a situation to provoke fundamentalists to do real life harm simply for the purpose of provoking them.

You're seriously lacking nuance here.

[FLPanhandle]

70. And you continue to be wrong.

It's our right and obligation to fight for our rights to express ourselves even if that means purposely standing up to fundamentalist bullies.

You want to shrink away and never confront their slow but restrictive constraints on others behaviors.

I applaud anyone (even Geller in this one case) for confronting the fear these Muslim fundamentalist are trying to impose. I'd also applaud efforts to confront any restrictive Christian constraints Geller wants to impose onto others.

People like you are how society's slowly and surely cave in bit by bit to oppressive groups.

[stranger81]

73. Why, exactly, do we need to fight for the right to free expression?

Has that not been enshrined in constitutional law since about 1793, or thereabouts?

Geller and Wilders are not fighting for anything except extreme Islamophobia. The attempt to lionize them as some sort of free speech champions is laughable, and not worthy of a discussion board to the left of Stormfront.

[FLPanhandle]

79. "do we need to fight for the right to free expression?"

You can't be serious?

It's only under attack every day by different religious groups.

You must not be serious.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

74. So do you honestly think it is okay to intentionally try to provoke violence....

....in order to try to prove a point or attempt to justify one's personal positions or philosophy?

Because if you don't think that's what Gellar is trying to do here, you either don't know anything about her, or you're a complete idiot.

There's a huge difference between saying that there is a problem with some members of the Islamic religion resorting to violence or terrorism, and actually creating a situation where you hope someone of the Islamic faith might resort to violence so you can then shout, "I told you so", all while potentially putting innocent life at risk.

A huge, huge difference.

[FLPanhandle]

86. This isn't about Gellar

or her motives.

It's about standing up and defending the right to expression without being intimidated or "worrying about causing offense" from those that want to bully people.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

88. This particular incident is about Geller.

Since this was her intended outcome for her intended purposes.

That she wasn't personally the person who shot into the building is besides the point.

[FLPanhandle]

89. If there exists enough intimidation and threats of violence to stop people from showing cartoons

Then it's past time for this type of provocation to be done in every city & town.

The bullies have already won then if someone as stupid as her can create a situation where she knows they will react.

We need more deliberate provocation not less.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

93. No, we don't need people to intentionally create violent flashpoints for selfish means.

Again, it's sad you don't see that's what happened here. Not some flowery Free Speech extravaganza.

Free Speech may apply, but it's not what's driving Pam Geller.

[FLPanhandle]

95. It's sad you blame the provocation, not the reaction

Just like it doesn't matter if a woman is drunk, flirtatious, or went out looking for sex. If she is raped, that is all irrelevant victim blaming.

Therefore, I don't care about Pam Geller or her motives or what kind or person she is, or how she will benefit, it's irrelevant when someone exercises their rights and gets attacked.

I'm done with such obtuse arguments from you, as you argue we should not to "provoke" religious fundamentalists. Fuck that. They need provoking.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

98. It's an equation. A chemical reaction.

Blaming one portion of the equation does not exclude blaming the other portion of the equation when they both need each other to produce the ultimate result.

It's not like these two idiots shot up a flower expo.

[FLPanhandle]

103. Spoken exactly like a rape victim blamer

"Blaming one portion of the equation does not exclude blaming the other portion of the equation"

Now I'm really done with you. I've never expected to see such stupid shit on DU.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

111. Yes. That's exactly what I am. A rape victim blamer.

I'm also a Dick Cheney lover and a puppy and kitten hater.

All because I don't see any value in trying to intentionally provoke violence.

[snooper2]

67. I think the end game for humans is to embrace science and technology and not mythology

I used to think 150-200 years, probably more like 5-600 years at this rate

[X_Digger]

110. Here's the thing about rights- they don't give a flying fuck about the 'end game'.

If you have to justify why you should be allowed to exercise a right, then it's a goddamned privilege, not a right.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

115. Of course they don't.

Because they're not fucking human beings. They're rights. They don't exist without an actor.

[Lizzie Poppet]

8. Best ban those gay pride parades right away!

There are a whole lot more armed RW homophobes in this country than militant Muslims, after all. Someone might get hurt!

[AuntPatsy]

17. It's what many self called Christians do daily and have for hundreds of years......

And I agree it's Depraved Hearts they truly possess all of them that use such to tactics to gain memberships....

[NutmegYankee]

40. Wow, the shit you read here sometimes!

Drawing a cartoon = depraved heart murder. I wish there were stronger words than absurd, preposterous, ludicrous and ridiculous!

[Tommy_Carcetti]

44. It's not the act of drawing a cartoon.

It's mentally deranged people who insist that the United States is constantly under the threat of radical Islam holding a public forum for the sole purposes of trying to stir up an incident that they in turn would use to justify their position.

The cartoon drawing merely is the McGuffin of it all.

[arcane1]

48. No more abortions! You never know when a fundamentalist will kill a provider.

Again.

[sabrina 1]

52. Well, we know that Right Wing, Hate Groups, like Geller's believe we SHOULD

go out of our way to do that. And they generally succeed in getting some of their counter parts, people just like them, to bite when they throw out their hateful bait.

And in this country, Right Wing Hate Groups do have the right to spew their hate.

But most rational people choose not to put on the white sheets even if they have the right to do so.

She got what she wanted.

I would suggest to her that she take her hate campaign to the ME if violence is what she wants, rather than bring that violence to the US.

[treestar]

60. Is there a point to upsetting them just to upset them?

Especially when we know there are some in this point in history who react in an extreme fashion?

[Tommy_Carcetti]

68. 'Xactly. nt

[840high]

69. ...^ that

[Martin Eden]

82. Real stupidity often involves courses of action that only make a problem worse

Religious fundamentalism, in all its forms, is a dangerous cult.

Some present an actual danger of physical violence, but even those that don't are a danger to the mental health of those who get sucked into it and to the societies impacted by the fundamentalist mindset. This includes Christian fundamentalists in the US who are sucked into a "conservative" ideology and manipulated into serving the interests of the warmongers and modern day money changers.

Human civilization needs to evolve beyond the point where religious fundamentalism has any significant impact. Until then, ignorance and violence will continue to write our tragic history.

We should applaud enlightened efforts that will speed along that evolutionary process.

I do not applaud Geller, or her tactics. She is just as bad (if not worse) than many religious fundamentalists. Her mindset promotes bigotry & hate, not human progress. The intent of her recent stunt was to provoke the kind of response she got. If it has any effect beyond the violence of the day, it will be to further divide people along religious lines and promote more extremism.

[Jack Rabbit]

91. So what is Ms. Geller?

Don't expect me to defend the Islamic fundamentalists, because I won't. The best thing to do with Taliban, Boko Harem or Islamic State fighters is disarm them and put them in a place where they will do no further harm to little girls who want to get an education or anybody else who simply exercises a human right to worship as he chooses, not as these assholes choose for him.

Speaking of assholes, I will now precede to discuss Ms. Geller. She, too, is a fanatic and there's no law that says fanatics all have to like each other. Ms. Geller is a Jew who happens to think that Jews are better than Arabs, and specifically followers of Islam. To this end end she propagates the obvious lie that all Muslims are out to destroy the West. None of the major religions of the earth are so monolithic that the word of a minister is all it takes to turn a billion people into terrorists. It must frustrate her no end, since she isn't able to do it herself, either. She cannot convince all Americans to go to a holy war against the infidel Muslims, whom she calls "barbarians" as well as terrorists, and she cannot convince American Jews to vote for Republicans instead of Democrats because the sociopaths and psychopaths in the GOP are more willing to go war against the "barbarians".

Before I forget to mention it, "barbarian" is a helluva epithet for a people who preserved Greek classics, furthered medicinal arts and sciences and advanced mathematics (algebra is an Arabic word) during the time when Europe a sorry mud hole ruled by their own superstitious fanatics like Peter the Hermit and Pope Urban II, who started the Crusades.

A person like Ms. Geller who takes her frustrations out on an entire ethnic or religious group is clearly a racist or sectarian bigot. When she goes so far as to deny any record of cultural achievements by Arabs or Muslims that are clearly a part of the historical record is also an idiot.

Yeah, right, I'll agree with you about one thing . . . "The stupidity around here sometimes . . . ."

[Skittles]

97. teabagging nutcases provoking religious nutcases at a public forum

something is NOT RIGHT about that

[Gidney N Cloyd]

5. But exactly who are we comparing to the sharks, which have no choice in how they behave?

[Tommy_Carcetti]

9. Analogy vs. metaphor. nt

[Gidney N Cloyd]

26. OK, exactly who are we saying are analagous to the sharks, which have no choice in how they behave?

[Tommy_Carcetti]

78. It's not an an analogy. nt

[muriel_volestrangler]

83. http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/analogous

Synonyms for analogous
adj agreeing, similar
akin
...

http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/analogous

And why didn't you tell reply #1 that it's not an analogy?

[Gidney N Cloyd]

87. Thank you. And I believe a metaphor might be "Pam Geller chummed the waters to draw the sharks."

[Nuclear Unicorn]

6. Do you think the people who tried to shoot-up Geller's event are like sharks with no moral will?

[Tommy_Carcetti]

10. Analogy vs. metaphor. nt

[Nuclear Unicorn]

30. You failed at both.

The perpetrators had a choice. They made a deliberate decision under their capacity as free moral beings. You blame Geller for her choices yet you seem to imply there was no other possible course of action for the would-be terrorists. People are not sharks. Sharks are drawn to thing that indicate sources of food because that is all they are capable of doing. They cannot do otherwise.

If someone sees something offensive on TV they can choose to continue watching, change the channel, turn off the TV or shoot up the TV station but only one of those choices is morally reprehensible and without excuse.

[sufrommich]

11. Every time an atheist speaks openly about the

insanity of religion,they're chumming the waters. What should we do about it?

[Tommy_Carcetti]

16. Context matters.

I.e. what is being said, where it is being said, and what are the possible consequences of the fallout.

[sufrommich]

25. So if I stand up in a public place and denounce all religion,knowing

that most Americans are religious,am I asking for it? Thankfully,our right to free speech isn't predicated on the consequences of the fallout.

[Bonx]

12. More free speech failsplanation

[Lee-Lee]

13. Wow- I can't help but see a right-wing racist thought line here

Are muslims just dangerous animals who can't control themselves if given the right provocation?

Really?

That's the analogy you just made- that when presented with a picture that offends them muslims are just as animalistic as sharks who smell blood.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

15. Analogy vs. metaphor. nt

[Bonx]

24. Not sure what you are getting at with the Analogy vs. metaphor posts

but the OP is over the top insanity.

[Sanity Claws]

14. Isn't it incitement to riot?

She CAUSED the problems that ensued.

[PeaceNikki]

18. No. People are responsible for their OWN actions and behavior.

People are not animals who are prone to "attack" based on a primal survival instinct like, you know... sharks.

Those who attacked are responsible for the attack.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

21. Analogy vs. metaphor. nt

[PeaceNikki]

22. Still not analogous.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

56. Exactly. nt

[leftynyc]

31. You keep posting that

as if it actually means anything. Your OP was ridiculous and you apparently don't like being told that so you think you can play games with language. Either defend your position or delete the post because you're wasting everyone's time.

[phil89]

41. Maybe you should

look up the meaning of both. Mathis has been explained to you already.

[arcane1]

49. Repetition vs clarification n/t

[Tommy_Carcetti]

54. It's not my fault you and some other folks can't grasp the distinction.

The bottom line is that willfully attempting to create a real life danger so that one can use such an opportunity to rail against a perceived danger is not laudable behavior.

Yes, free speech technically applies to the situation, but it is ancillary to it. Pam Gellar was not doing this for the purposes of free speech.

[Romeo.lima333]

27. if that'sthe case the the person who yells fire in a crowded theater,causes a panic and some

injuries occur is un-arrestable because People are responsible for their OWN actions and behavior.

[PeaceNikki]

33. It's Time to Stop Using the 'Fire in a Crowded Theater' Quote

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-time-to-stop-using-the-fire-in-a-crowded-theater-quote/264449/

[Romeo.lima333]

37. that article is on the limits of free speech -and didnt answer the question

[PeaceNikki]

39. There was no question.

[Romeo.lima333]

94. this was the question

if that'sthe case then the person who yells fire in a crowded theater,causes a panic and some
injuries occur is un-arrestable because People are responsible for their OWN actions and behavior?

[Lizzie Poppet]

20. Bullshit.

The problems that ensued were caused by a couple of superstitious, violent savages who thought that because something offended their primitive beliefs, they were entitled to use deadly force. Reasonable, sane people don't react to non-violent acts with deadly violence.

[Lee-Lee]

23. No- if anyone incited it would be those who said people who draw Mohammad must die

That is inciting violence.

[awoke_in_2003]

102. Fuck Mohammed.

Oh, and for balance, fuck Jesus.

[WinkyDink]

38. HARDLY. "Incitement to riot" is exactly and precisely that, exhortation, rabble-rousing. Not a DRAW-

ING, FCS.

[Romeo.lima333]

19. she did what charlie hebdo does and one is cheered and the other villified

[leftynyc]

32. Spare me the histronics

One or two people are attacking geller. The VAST majority of DUers (like 98%) are putting the blame for the violence exactly where it belongs - with the gunmen.

[closeupready]

64. Charlie Hebdo fired a staff illustrator for an anti-semitic joke

about Sarkozy's son, raising all kinds of red flags and yet, chose to pick on a minority religion in an era when muslims have become the popular scapegoat for everything that's wrong with society today.

Gellar, on the other hand, seems at least to be consistently hateful. So I suppose if consistency is a virtue, she has THAT on Hebdo.

But ultimately, normal people would have nothing to do with either of them, in any shape, way, or form.

[Capt. Obvious]

28. AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service

On Mon May 4, 2015, 11:42 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

What Pam Gellar did is akin to....
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026617996

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

saying muslims are like sharks who smell blood when they get offended? Racist analogy not unlike saying a African Americans behave like monkeys

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Mon May 4, 2015, 11:47 AM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Dearly beloved, we are gathered here today to say farewell to this alerter. The poor chap choked on its tongue while reaching for credibility.

He leaves behind a lovely wife, 3 children, and his alerting privileges for 24 hours.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I do not believe that the alerter's pov is the correct interpretation of what was said, rather that she is trying to create the issue that she is trying to "warn" people about.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Alerter completely missed the point of the analogy. Leave it.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I am not seeing what the alerter sees.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Uh, alerter, you don't have to agree with the post but I don't see how it is racist or hide-worthy.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

43. Paging Captain Picard.....

[Enthusiast]

92. Don't forget Jesus.

[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

[Lizzie Poppet]

76. What an idiotic alert.

Yes, the OP is breathtakingly wrong...but alert-worthy? Please...

[longship]

29. First Amendment rights == shark chumming?

Can hardly wait for the justification for that opinion...

[ProfessorGAC]

34. You Sure You Thought This All The Way Through

Look i think Geller is a lunatic and dumber than dirt to boot. A clear example of a great test taker getting the credentials but incapable of real learning or cogent thought.

Perhaps, it might work a bit better to analogize that what this buffoon did is at least moving toward yelling fire in a crowded theater.

I still wouldn't be happy to exonerate the punks with guns who did this. But, it seems more apt than the chumming reference.

[Marr]

35. Then she made her point.

I see zero excuse for the shooters. Unless you're willing to apply the same characterization to abortion clinic bombers or people who attack atheists who speak openly.

[WinkyDink]

36. Neither art nor "art" is or ever was the CAUSE of murder, except to the deranged murderer.

FREEDOM OF SPEECH GOES FOR THE CRITICS OF ISLAM AS WELL AS FOR THE CRITICS OF CHRISTIANITY, JUDAISM, HINDUISM, SCIENTOLOGY, AND SO ON.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

42. I've been camping the last few days. What did she do this time? nt

[EX500rider]

104. Start here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=1083905

[Codeine]

46. One should not expect restraint from sharks.

One should expect, even demand, appropriate restraint from humans.

[backscatter712]

47. Islamic teabaggers meet Western Judeo-Christian jihadis.

I say just let 'em slug it out.

[Paladin]

50. Pam Gellar may have skirted a criminal incitement rap....

...but that security guard ended up taking a bullet for her, pure and simple. Whatever remains of informed, polite society should turn its back on her and the filthy, hateful sentiments she spreads.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

51. Exactly.

Glad at least someone got my point.

[closeupready]

59. And yet, that won't happen. Instead, 60 Minutes and Meet The Press will

be knocking down her door, salivating at the thought of getting her to help push a far right-wing agenda. IMO.

[Paladin]

66. I'm afraid you're right.

A few more people will probably have to die or be wounded on account of her actions, before she receives the shunning she deserves. Meanwhile, the radicalized right wing has another goddess to worship.

[Lizzie Poppet]

75. Charlie Hedbo may have skirted a criminal incitement rap....

...but that Muslim policeman ended up taking a bullet for them, pure and simple. Whatever remains of informed, polite society should turn its back on them and the filthy, hateful sentiments they spread.

[Paladin]

96. I reject your equating the Charlie Hebdo incident with Gellar's Texas event.

But what happened to the Muslim policeman was tragic.

[melman]

99. People shot over drawings is people shot over drawings

[Paladin]

100. Read today's Rude Pundit column, "Pamela Gellar's Dream Come True."

Hope you enjoy it as much as I did......

[Lizzie Poppet]

101. Precisely equivalent, not at all, I agree. Sufficiently so to merit comparison?

Absolutely. Both are cases of an entity electing to make a point of exercising free speech rights in an in-your-face manner. Their motivations for doing so are the primary differentiation, but in both cases, categorically identical "speech" was met with murder (or attempted murder). The incidents are far more similar than they are different.

Moreover, Gellar's quite-probably-loathsome intentions don't alter the fact that a couple of superstitious savages elected to react to people drawing cartoons with deadly force. That is insufficient provocation to any rational, sane person. And the reactions of insane murderers is no fit basis for policy...

[Recursion]

53. You kind of are, though :/ (nt)

[closeupready]

57. She seems like a stereotypical, hysterical, mentally ill woman,

and a classically defined narcissist - seems like it to me, that is.

[moondust]

61. Paging Poetic Justice... n/t

[Bluenorthwest]

63. As a gay person, I'm used to Geller's ilk although they are usually religious clergy or GOP

politicians taking Pam's part. Clerics, including the Pope who deliver anti gay sermons in a world full of anti gay violence know exactly what they are doing. Huckabee, Pat Robertson, Westboro Baptist, they know what they are after when they engage in that baiting. So does Pope Francis, whom DU enshrines as a progressive hero even as he says LGBT rights are Satan's idea.

[Binkie The Clown]

72. I think your OP is chumming the waters to rile up lovers of free speech.

Why are you deliberately trying to offend those of us who value free speech?

[Yorktown]

114. Excellent point

Btw, a while back, the Conference of Islamic Nations tried to get a UN resolution banning blasphemy worldwide.

I guess they were just chumming the waters to have a bit of harmless fun.

[muriel_volestrangler]

80. Do you believe humans have free will? If so, do sharks?

I don't think a 'popular beach' is comparable to a venue that has been hired for the explicit purpose of having a Mohammad cartoon meeting.

[Greybnk48]

81. Stochastic terrorism.

Last edited Mon May 4, 2015, 07:41 PM - Edit history (1)

She knew exactly what she was doing and should be arrested for terrorism.

[EX500rider]

105. HAHA....wait, are you being serious??

[Greybnk48]

106. Dead serious. Are you laughing because of my typo?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/01/11/934890/-Stochastic-Terrorism-160-Triggering-the-shooters

[EX500rider]

107. No, laughing that someone would consider a cartoon contest "terrorism"

[Greybnk48]

108. Pretty slick, huh. But she had Charlie Hebdo as

her model. She knew exactly what she was doing. She's a vicious pig, and no, I'm not a muslim. I'm an atheist.

[GGJohn]

113. Wait. Wut? Are you fucking serious?

Arrested for terrorism?
The real terrorists were shot dead by the Garland Police before they could carry out their plan of murder.
In no fucking way is she a terrorist, a fucking racist bigot, but in this country, she's has a constitutional right to be that.

[blackspade]

84. More like O'Reily chanting 'Baby Killer' until some wackjob kills a doctor

Either way, a disgusting piece of work....

[MosheFeingold]

85. I guess pretty girls ask to be raped in your world n/t

[NCTraveler]

90. This is getting stupid.

Lets just close the books on abortion. We all know how it works up the righties. Tiller would still be here if it weren't for his own stupid actions. He knew what he was doing. Just justifications being given are a joke. And before you say it, this is one hundred percent an argument of justification. Blatant.

[X_Digger]

109. Bullshit. People can make choices. n/t

[Quantess]

112. Poor sharks.

What did sharks do to deserve that comparison?