Author Salman Rushdie attacked in New York

[toucana]

The author Sir Salman Rushdie 75 has been attacked on stage at a literary festival being held in The Chautauqua Institution in New York USA

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-62524833

He is reported to have been stabbed in the neck by an attacker who rushed the stage. Rushdie was subsequently airlifted to hospital in a helicopter, and the attacker was taken into custody immediately by the police.

Sir Salman Rushdie has been living under the threat of a fatwa calling for his death pronounced by the late Iranian cleric Ayatollah Khomeinei in 1989 in response to Rushdie's novel The Satanic Verses (1988).

Edited August 12, 2022 by toucana
typo 'response'

[mistermack]

Just an update on Rushdie.

13/8/22  news, he's being helped breathing by a ventilator, and might lose an eye. (according to his agent). Sounds like he will make it.

I would give the stabber life without parole. Like the idiot who killed Lennon. The intention is to kill, so why should they benefit from their own incompetence? 

[dimreepr]

7 minutes ago, mistermack said:

I would give the stabber life without parole. Like the idiot who killed Lennon. The intention is to kill, so why should they benefit from their own incompetence? 

An eye for an eye is the sort of thing that his books explores; for instance, you can't declare a jihad to be the greater good; even if you are incompetent...

[geordief]

23 minutes ago, mistermack said:

Just an update on Rushdie.

13/8/22  news, he's being helped breathing by a ventilator, and might lose an eye. (according to his agent). Sounds like he will make it.

I would give the stabber life without parole. Like the idiot who killed Lennon. The intention is to kill, so why should they benefit from their own incompetence? 

I wonder what security  Rushdie had all these years.

He had an armed guard  for years and voluntarily dispensed with it. 

 

Did he get any special support afterwards(in England at any rate)?

 

Any unfortunate name  btw as I read it that he had died when I first glanced at the report on the website...

[mistermack]

2 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

An eye for an eye is the sort of thing that his books explores; for instance, you can't declare a jihad to be the greater good; even if you are incompetent...

Life without parole isn't an eye for an eye though. Nobody's going to stab the guy in the eye, or neck. (unless he gets unlucky in prison)

The principle of punishing the intention is established in English law. Conspiracy to kill gets a serious sentence, even if you don't do anything. As is planning a terrorist act. And terror goes way ahead of a stab in the eye. It's designed to provoke fear in everyone, not just the stabbee. 

Also life without parole is a great way of protecting the public from the loony. 

[dimreepr]

Just now, mistermack said:

Life without parole isn't an eye for an eye though. Nobody's going to stab the guy in the eye, or neck. (unless he gets unlucky in prison)

The principle of punishing the intention is established in English law. Conspiracy to kill gets a serious sentence, even if you don't do anything. As is planning a terrorist act. And terror goes way ahead of a stab in the eye. It's designed to provoke fear in everyone, not just the stabbee. 

Also life without parole is a great way of protecting the public from the loony. 

We only disagree with who the loony is.

[mistermack]

3 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

We only disagree with who the loony is.

Who do you think the loony is?

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, mistermack said:

Who do you think the loony is?

He who thinks two eyes equal's one...

[mistermack]

27 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

He who thinks two eyes equal's one...

So you don't think bad intent should be punished? 

[MigL]

1 hour ago, mistermack said:

Who do you think the loony is?

Dimreepr 😄 .

[geordief]

Rushdie off the ventilator. (on the BBC TV although not showing on their website where their last update ,6  hours ago has him as "critical)

Seems like he has had a lucky escape.

 

Not sure how serious a punctured liver is

.....or how debilitating a damaged windpipe might be (if it is damaged)

Edited August 14, 2022 by geordief

[dimreepr]

20 hours ago, MigL said:

Dimreepr 😄 .

I hesitate to pursue this, given a man's life is in the balance; OTOH he potentially gave his life to ask the same question

Quote

At the beginning of the novel, both are trapped in a hijacked plane flying from India to Britain.^[6] The plane explodes over the English Channel, but the two are magically saved. In a miraculous transformation, Farishta takes on the personality of the archangel Gabriel and Chamcha that of a devil. Chamcha is arrested and passes through an ordeal of police abuse as a suspected illegal immigrant.

The question being, who's the loony? It reminds me of "the parable of the madman".

[mistermack]

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

The question being, who's the loony?

A fallacious question, assuming that there's only one loony, and that lunacy is a binary condition. 

Your parable of the loony reminded me of this : 

 

[dimreepr]

20 hours ago, mistermack said:

A fallacious question, assuming that there's only one loony, and that lunacy is a binary condition. 

If you want too actually earn your +1, you're going to have to explain why it's fallacious, preferably without using a strawman fallacy.

20 hours ago, mistermack said:

Your parable of the loony reminded me of this : 

Way to miss the point 🙄, BTW it's the parable of the madman (like I said, less of the strawmen please).

If we exclude those afflicted with a medical condition (we don't have too, but it does introduce an unnecessary complication), the point is (mine and I think, his), the loonatic when viewed from two extremes (the angel Gabriel and the Devil) is impossible to determine, whatever atrocity they seem commit.

I think Sir Salman Rushdie would pitty his assailant.

[mistermack]

6 hours ago, dimreepr said:

On 8/14/2022 at 3:24 PM, mistermack said:

A fallacious question, assuming that there's only one loony, and that lunacy is a binary condition. 

If you want too actually earn your +1, you're going to have to explain why it's fallacious, preferably without using a strawman fallacy.

I thought that was self-explanatory. You posted "the question being, who's the loony?"  That clearly assumes that there is ONE loony, and doesn't allow for both or neither parties being loonies. And it also doesn't account for lunacy being a question of degree, rather than a binary loony/non-loony condition. 

But anyway, how come you demand such elaboration from me, but ignore clear questions put to you? That's double standards. 

6 hours ago, dimreepr said:

I think Sir Salman Rushdie would pitty his assailant.

I have no interest in what Salman Rushdie thinks. I just support his right to think it, and publish it. I don't support the totally free right to publish offensive material, but I think the test should be, "would this be grossly offensive to a reasonable person?"  and there's nothing reasonable about religion. 

And in any case, if offense is caused, there are peaceful methods of objecting, and stabbing people in the eye is clearly straying into the loony territory of expressing your objections.

[MigL]

Just like in Relativity, Frames of Reference do matter.

Nobody is a 'loony' when viewing themselves, in their own FoR.
Looniness is only perceived from an external observer, or external FoR.

[mistermack]

Loony is a word that has spun around in meaning. The original people classed as lunatics would now be classed as suffering from a serious mental illness, or severe PMT. 

Now it's reserved for sane people who ought to know better. By me anyway. 

[dimreepr]

19 hours ago, mistermack said:

I thought that was self-explanatory. You posted "the question being, who's the loony?"  That clearly assumes that there is ONE loony, and doesn't allow for both or neither parties being loonies.

Your assumption is precisely why it's a fallacious argument, it was never written that way and it's difficult to imargine how you could imply that from that sentence.

19 hours ago, mistermack said:

But anyway, how come you demand such elaboration from me, but ignore clear questions put to you? That's double standards.

I apologise if I've done that, to you, in previous thread's (I tend to only answer question's that are pertinent to the thread I'm posting in), as for this thread what question's are you refering to? I can't remember any...

19 hours ago, mistermack said:

I have no interest in what Salman Rushdie thinks. I just support his right to think it, and publish it. I don't support the totally free right to publish offensive material, but I think the test should be, "would this be grossly offensive to a reasonable person?"  

Who gets to draw the line?

19 hours ago, mistermack said:

and there's nothing reasonable about religion.

Someone who hasn't got enough clarity of thought to think that that's an unreasonable thing to say, or an impartial court of law?

19 hours ago, mistermack said:

And in any case, if offense is caused, there are peaceful methods of objecting, and stabbing people in the eye is clearly straying into the loony territory of expressing your objections.

Now imagine that you're Iranian, with most of the world holding you down and trying to starve you into submitting. You're only hope of a meal tomorrow is the prayers you whisper to, what you hope is a real God. Then one of those people, sneer's at your God and tries to make other's laugh at what you believe...

What sort of mood would you be in?

I'm not saying it's right to make that your excuse, but it sure is a powerful motivation; not everyone can see clearly enough to understand the, horrible, consequences that revenge brings... 

Edited August 16, 2022 by dimreepr

[mistermack]

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

it was never written that way and it's difficult to imargine how you could imply that

That's just an empty claim, with no argument to support it. Apart from the argument from incredulity.

 

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

as for this thread what question's are you refering to? I can't remember any...

I asked if you thought that intent should be punished. I also posted earlier about the principle of punishing the intention. This will be gone over in the finest detail, possibly for weeks, when this idiot comes up for trial and sentencing. But it doesn't seem to be of any interest to you. 

 

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

Who gets to draw the line?

Each country has it's own layers of moderation, censorship and legislation. 

 

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

I'm not saying it's right to make that your excuse, but it sure is a powerful motivation;

So what? Motivation is guesswork for anyone but the criminal. It's an obvious given, that if you try to kill someone with a knife, you have a powerful motivation. That's a very good reason for locking you up for life. Because your motivations are a danger to the public. I personally don't give a toss why a dog bit me. I just want it put down.

Humans are not dogs, so it's better not to execute them, but life without parole would be perfectly fitting in this sort of case. The intention was to kill, and to create terror, and it was only due to amazing courage by onlookers that he didn't succeed, so he deserves no benefit from the fact that Rushdie survived.

[dimreepr]

Just now, mistermack said:

That's just an empty claim, with no argument to support it. Apart from the argument from incredulity.

OK, you're doubling down...  why? You could, just as easy, not reply...