So much for Dutch tolerance

[Leshy]

Gunman kills Dutch film director

Dutch film maker Theo van Gogh, who made a controversial film about Islamic culture recently, has been shot dead in Amsterdam, Dutch media report. Police said they had arrested a man at the scene after an exchange of gunfire.

Van Gogh, 47, had received death threats after his film Submission, on violence against women in Islamic societies, was shown on Dutch TV. The film was made with liberal Dutch politician Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a Somali refugee who fled an arranged marriage. Ayaan Hirsi Ali has been under police protection since the film was aired. She has also received death threats and has renounced the Islamic faith.

Van Gogh's production company told the Dutch news agency ANP that he had been shot dead. Police did not identify the victim. Both the suspect and a policeman suffered bullet wounds and are now in hospital.

Van Gogh - who was related to the famous Dutch painter - had also been making a film about Pim Fortuyn, the populist right-wing, anti-immigration politician assassinated in May 2002.

Granted, he was a bit of a twat and I didn't like his weekly column in the Metro, a free newspaper distributed around public transportation systems. He was against the Islam and openly showed this in his column, always ranting against the "goat****ers", "sheep****ers" and "pimps of the prophet" which was more tedious than amusing.

However, getting killed for showing your opinion is completely intolerable. After Fortuyn, it's another sad day for the tolerance, openness and adaptability commonly associated with the Netherlands.

On another Dutch forum, there is a rumour going about that whomever shot him also pinned a letter to his chest with a knife. I hope that it's nothing more than a rumour, because that would frankly be too sick for words. Apparently the police has confirmed that islamic texts were found at the body.

[IncubusGod]

Ouch...

[KoeN]

first Fortuyn, then the guy at Balkenende's door, now this....too sad for words.

[Nusselt]

title doesn't include the words 'in the head with bullets not cum'


edit i don't know who he was and obviously getting killed isn't a good thing but for the sake of discussion

After Fortuyn, it's another sad day for the tolerance, openness and adaptability commonly associated with the Netherlands.

If he himself wasn't that tolerant and understanding that doesn't make a whole lot of sense, to me it sounds like a right-wing fanatic was killed by and islamic fanatic*. If abu hamza got cummed on the head by nick grifin id be surprised he'd been killed but wouldn't really be worried about the state of the british nation or the intellectual loss.

*assumption

[Ninja_spammer]

Obviously the Dutch need to ban all guns, that'll stop all these killings.

[Leshy]

Originally Posted by Nusselt

If he himself wasn't that tolerant and understanding that doesn't make a whole lot of sense, to me it sounds like a right-wing fanatic was killed by and islamic fanatic.

There's quite a bit of a difference between venting your opinion about a religion and shooting someone several times, then pinning a pamphlet to his body with a knife.

[General Martok]

Guns are only allowed with a lisence, which you cant get that easily. Compared to the US the number of guns per inhabitant is neglectable. But you can never get all firearms out of a country unfortunately, there will allways be ways to get them.

btw, in the Netherlands less people get murdered annually than in New York City, so dont change the topic to murder in general, but stick to this specific case.

[CoD]

just as GTA:SA comes out, it must be to blame

[hook]

Unbelievable.

[mpr0733]

Luckily we have people in power here who are always eager to help ease tensions by saying that this could be a terroristic act or that the perpetrator was possibly being investigated by intelligence agencies.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by Leshy

However, getting killed for showing your opinion is completely intolerable.

Intolerable indeed, but if you use obscene and grossly offensive language, such as you have outlined, (I'm presuming those are actual direct quotes.) against Islam generally in today's climate, then it's a bit like the 'I hate ******s' scene in Die Hard 3, really.

Realistically, there is never going to be a position whereby people are absolutely protected from the consequences of saying what they do; people must therefore use their own judgement in such matters.

If people get shot or attacked for being grossly, deeply, and horribly offensive to a whole group of people, then I condemn that, but I'm not in the least surprised, and frankly, neither should they be.

[Dace]

3 people were shot in Glasgow at the weekend (1 is dead) *shrug*

[BoredOfThis]

the dutch love to shoot each other. Thats what happens i suppose when you are 20 feet below sea level.

[Blastoderm]

I think there should be a line on how you can view your opinion. I mean he aired an opinion about Islam in possibly the worst of way. Any muslim would have been that pissed off and took matters in their own hands (assuming the person who shot him was muslim). The action taken was wrong but things like this was obviously going to happen.

I wouldn't be surprised if the Jews would plot something against Mel Gibson for his film. Or black people killing directors portraying black people as barbarians who solve everything with a gun. Or the Italian Mafia to take on people who portray them as criminals etc.

[Sunday8pm]

Seems like Holland have a terrorism problem they don't want to mention.

[Androme]

De Ja Vu ala Painter?

[SilverSmoke]

Originally Posted by Sunday8pm

Seems like Holland have a terrorism problem they don't want to mention.

Because some madman thought it would be a good idea to kill someone who very loudly oppose everything that has something to do with Islam doesn't mean we have a terrorism problem in a way that people might want to make of it.

[Nusselt]

I think MM put it the most eloquently, i don't question that he did raise questions that need to be addressed within and with the islamic community in holland and wider abroad. But from what i understand he put his sentiments across in a trollish manner. If you push the buttons of fanatics* you can't be surprised by the reaction.

He probably had some interesting things to say, he put his views across poorly and only got a reaction from the lowest denominator.

*im guessing thats what he was trying to do

[KoeN]

he said was most people are thinking, but don't dare to speak out in public. he provocated many people, wasn't loved by many people but still he had the right to say these things.
'freedom of speech'.
like Fortuyn, i wasn't too fond of Van Gogh aswell. both persons entertained me though, i'm sad that they're dead now...

[Nusselt]

Its odd that you have to rely on the extreme anything to put across the views the 'masses' feel. Perhaps most people should have excercised their freedom of speech and put their misgivings across to the muslim community in a less abrasive manner.

Just to re-iterate i don't support his killing or that of fortuyn and im not side stepping what could have been legitimate issues raised by him its just that if you leave it to the extreme of one side to be the vocal questioners then the extreme of the other side are the ones most likely to respond.

[Leshy]

Originally Posted by Marilyn Manson

If people get shot or attacked for being grossly, deeply, and horribly offensive to a whole group of people, then I condemn that, but I'm not in the least surprised, and frankly, neither should they be.

I never said it came as a surprise.

And yes, he regularly used those words in his column to describe for example Imams in Dutch mosques and terrorists. He called Mohammed a paedophile, as I believe in Islamic tradition he was married to a 9-year old girl or something like that, which obviously was going to annoy some people of said faith.

What also caused a great deal of commotion was a short movie he did recently, called "Submission", in which four muslim women told the stories of how they were abused, while dressed in a see-through dress with parts of the Quran that state how a man has the right to beat his wife etc. painted on their bodies.

As such, it's not a surprise that antagonizing a lot of people leads to hatred, but it's still completely intolerable and too ridiculous for words that someone simply chooses to repeatedly shoot him, cut his throat and knife a bunch of Quran texts to his body.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Marilyn Manson

If people get shot or attacked for being grossly, deeply, and horribly offensive to a whole group of people, then I condemn that, but I'm not in the least surprised, and frankly, neither should they be.

That's more a sad reflection on the state of free speech than anything else. While I agree with some of what you've said the phrasing reduces the impact of the crime. If the police shoot dead a black man in a middle class white neighbourhood do we simply shrug out shoulders and say we're unsurprised?

[Nusselt]

Well to complete the context if its a black man in the deep south during '20s then i would be unsurprised.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Nusselt

Well to complete the context if its a black man in the deep south during '20s then i would be unsurprised.

No, you wouldn't be surprised, but you'd be more outraged than some people are being (I think). That sort of "Well, he was holding a white womans hand at the time" attitude is implicitly blaming the victim.

[Blastoderm]

Originally Posted by Leshy

He called Mohammed a paedophile, as I believe in Islamic tradition he was married to a 9-year old girl or something like that, which obviously was going to annoy some people of said faith.

He married to the 9 year old but she didn't become his wife/moved into his place until she was 15/16. Or so the biography of Mohammed said.

[Nusselt]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

No, you wouldn't be surprised, but you'd be more outraged than some people are being (I think). That sort of "Well, he was holding a white womans hand at the time" attitude is implicitly blaming the victim.

So? just because the victim is the victim doesn't mean they aren't culpable in what happened. To give my own analogy if as a white man i walked into brixton/harlesden/harlem and spent my time poking the black people and telling them how all n****** wanted to rob me with their penis, i would be somewhat responsible if i got shot.

Id say that what happened was disporportionate to what was said but i don't think van gogh can be claimed as a total innocent in all this.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Nusselt

Id say that what happened was disporportionate to what was said but i don't think van gogh can be claimed as a total innocent in all this.

And a woman walking around in tight clothing isn't an innocent in her rape, or a black guy isn't an innocent walking round a fairly white area, or homosexuals aren't innocent if they get beaten up while holding each others hands....right?

[G.K Zhukov]

HEH.

After what the Dutch state & goverment has done against Jose Maria Sison I say there is questions regarding "tolerance".

[Nusselt]

dante picking extreme examples that arent really relevant to the topic won't make an argument, just like what happened was disporportionate to what was said the examples you give are entire orders of magnitude away from what happened, but to go with your examples and add to them to put them into more equal contexts

if a woman goes to an area where theres lots of men, lets say a prison, and wears tight clothing with the intention of getting a reaction from the men, then yeah shes somewhat responsible for what happens

if a black man goes into a white area and goes around provoking the white people with black supremacist rants then yes he is somewhat responsible for getting his arse kicked

if a gay couple go to the middle of an ultra orthodox religious gathering of whatever denomination with the intention of provoking, they are somewhat responsible for what happens

i wouldn't say that in any of the cases they deserve to die BUT they share the responsibility.

[JonnyBGood]

****ing jews doing all that moneylending and then getting pissed off when we killed them all

[Structural Integrity]

Originally Posted by Nusselt

dante picking extreme examples that arent really relevant to the topic won't make an argument, just like what happened was disporportionate to what was said the examples you give are entire orders of magnitude away from what happened, but to go with your examples and add to them to put them into more equal contexts

if a woman goes to an area where theres lots of men, lets say a prison, and wears tight clothing with the intention of getting a reaction from the men, then yeah shes somewhat responsible for what happens

if a black man goes into a white area and goes around provoking the white people with black supremacist rants then yes he is somewhat responsible for getting his arse kicked

if a gay couple go to the middle of an ultra orthodox religious gathering of whatever denomination with the intention of provoking, they are somewhat responsible for what happens

i wouldn't say that in any of the cases they deserve to die BUT they share the responsibility.

So you say that people are responsible for their faith when provoking a reaction and that van Gogh was pushing his luck provoking these people. I agree with that, and I believe, if what Leshy posted earlier about van Gogh using the term "sheep****er" for Islamic people that he was not acting within his rights of freedom of speech, but was walking the rather thin line, or even crossing it, between freedom of speech and racism.
Still whether van Gogh provoked these people or not or was a racist, and whether it was his own fault or not, it does not justify killing him. Even more so, it does not justify taking right into ones own hands.

I do believe that this event is a bad thing for this Dutch tolerance and freedom of speech. Van Gogh maybe was walking a thin line, but he did put his opinion across on a sensitive subject. And now he's killed for uttering his opinion, I can understand that people are keeping their opinons to themselves rather than taking the risk of being killed for it.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Nusselt

dante picking extreme examples that arent really relevant to the topic won't make an argument

I don't see how they're anymore extreme than someone being killed for expressing their viewpoint in a peaceful fashion.

I'd say that anyone who doesn't violate the rights of others doesn't share the responsibility for being attacked or killed.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

That's more a sad reflection on the state of free speech than anything else.

It's a universal truth. I can't concieve of a situation in which that kind of extreme language wouldn't be met with extreme hate and intensity by quite a range of people, some prepared to use violent methods.

If you're waiting for a point whereby everyone going sits down and politely considers other people's opinons in a calm reasonable manner, then you're waiting for Godot, I'm afraid.

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

While I agree with some of what you've said the phrasing reduces the impact of the crime.

I'm not really sure what this means. If you're saying that somehow I'm lessening the offence, then I'm not; I'm simply stating that this isn't as simple as the outline of the thing suggests.

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

If the police shoot dead a black man in a middle class white neighbourhood do we simply shrug out shoulders and say we're unsurprised?

I'd be equally surprised, and find objection in it. With this I merely find objection.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Marilyn Manson

It's a universal truth. I can't concieve of a situation in which that kind of extreme language wouldn't be met with extreme hate and intensity by quite a range of people, some prepared to use violent methods.

I'm pretty sure if you insulted the Anglican Church (or similar) you wouldn't be stabbed and shot as a consequence. If you set up a website calling all Welsh people sheep shaggers do you think you'd be killed?

Even if it's some universal truth that people will get angry about stuff like this then fair enough, but it's still clear that some faiths / ideologies will resort to violence a lot more readily than others, no?

If you're waiting for a point whereby everyone going sits down and politely considers other people's opinons in a calm reasonable manner, then you're waiting for Godot, I'm afraid.

This has got nothing to do with being calm or reasonable. Hell, a counter-website calling the guy a faggot would be entirely appropriate given his "flaming". If not wanting people to go round murdering people who have different viewpoints is now considered utopian posturing then tell me and I'll change into some sandles and put on Imagine.

I'm not really sure what this means. If you're saying that somehow I'm lessening the offence, then I'm not; I'm simply stating that this isn't as simple as the outline of the thing suggests.

That is what I'm suggesting. As I said to Nusselt, if there was a story saying "Girl is raped and murdered in XYZ area" and the first replies were "Well, she was dressed like a slut" then I'd hope we'd be fairly dismissive. I raised the same complaint against Sunday's responses in Jonny's recent thread about Nigeria.

[Leshy]

The full CNN story:

Muslim row filmmaker killed

Controversial Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh (above, left), who made a film about violence against women in Islamic societies, has been murdered in Amsterdam, police say. A suspect was arrested soon afterwards following a shootout with police.

Police said they arrested a man at the scene after a shootout. The suspect, a 26-year-old man with dual Dutch-Moroccan nationality, and a police officer were slightly wounded.

Filmmaker Theo van Gogh had been threatened after the August airing of the movie "Submission," which he made with a right-wing Dutch politician who had renounced the Islamic faith of her birth.

Van Gogh, 47 -- who said he was the great grandson of the brother of famous Dutch painter Vincent van Gogh, who was also named Theo -- had received police protection after the film's release.

The killing immediately rekindled memories of the 2002 assassination of Dutch anti-immigration politician Pim Fortuyn who was shot to death days before national elections.

Van Gogh had been making a film about Fortuyn, which was due for release in December.

In a recent radio interview, Van Gogh dismissed the threats and called "Submission" "the best protection I could have. It's not something I worry about."

Police told The Associated Press that Van Gogh's killer shot and stabbed his victim and left a note on his body. They declined to comment on reports that the filmmaker's neck was slashed.

Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende called on the Dutch people to remain calm and not to jump to conclusions.

In a report by Dutch national broadcaster NOS quoted by AP, an unidentified witness who lives in the neighborhood said she heard six shots and saw the suspect concealing a gun. She said he walked away slowly, spoke to someone at the edge of the park, and then ran.

She said he was wearing a long beard and Islamic garb and appeared to be either an Arabic man or someone disguised as a Muslim.

Another unidentified witness told Dutch Radio 1 the killer arrived by bicycle and shot Van Gogh as he got out of a car. "He fell backward on the bicycle path and just laid there. The shooter stayed next to him and waited. Waited to make sure he was dead."

'Outspoken'

In a written statement, the prime minister said, "Nothing is known about the motive.

"I want to call on everyone not to jump to far-reaching conclusions. The facts must first be carefully weighed so let's allow the investigators to do their jobs," he said.

Balkenende praised Van Gogh as a proponent of free speech who had "outspoken opinions."

"It would be unacceptable if a difference of opinion led to this brutal murder," he said.

"He did receive death threats but he never took them quite seriously. He was a controversial figure and a champion of free speech," a colleague at Van Gogh's film production company told Reuters.

Police declined to comment on the possible motive.

Police spokesman Eric Vermeulen said the attacker fled to the nearby East Park, and was arrested after exchanging gunfire with police. Both the suspect and a policeman suffered minor injuries.

"They were conscious" when taken to hospital, Vermeulen told AP.

Newspaper columns

In addition to his film, Van Gogh also wrote columns about Islam that were published on his Web site, www.theovangogh.nl, and Dutch newspaper Metro.

The short television film "Submission" aired on Dutch television in August, enraged the Muslim community in the Netherlands.

It told the fictional story of a Muslim woman forced into a violent marriage, raped by a relative and brutally punished for adultery.

The English-language film was scripted by Somali-born Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a member of the Dutch parliament, has repeatedly outraged fellow Muslims by criticizing Islamic customs and the failure of Muslim families to adopt Dutch ways.

The place of Muslim immigrants in Dutch society became a contentious issue in the Netherlands, where many right-wing politicians have pushed for tougher immigration laws and say Muslims already settled in the country must make a greater effort to assimilate.

The Dutch wing of the European Arab League, one of several organizations to criticize "Submission" as insulting to Muslims, said they were shocked by the news of Van Gogh's murder.

"It's horrible. We don't know who did it and why but it's absolutely shocking that someone can be shot dead in a park in Amsterdam," Nabil Maruch told Reuters. "Shots and death threats are not the way to make people think differently."

Van Gogh has often come under criticism for his controversial movies. In December, his next movie "06-05," about the May 6, 2002 assassination of Pim Fortuyn, is scheduled to debut on the Internet.

[Nusselt]

Nice argument dante, i get it now. I think in my mind i was confusing two different issues. No his death isn't justifiable he didn't violate anyone elses rights, completely seperate to that i don't think his approach to dialogue with the muslim community was engendered towards creating trust.

To put it in terms of the analogies, the supremacist black man doesn't deserve to die in the white neighbourhood. But before his death neither should the supremacist black man have been the way to create a sense of inclusiveness with the white community.

I was confusing having the empathy and sense to understand and not offend for the sake of it, with resorting to violence with things you don't agree with.

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

I'd say that anyone who doesn't violate the rights of others doesn't share the responsibility for being attacked or killed.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

I'm pretty sure if you insulted the Anglican Church (or similar) you wouldn't be stabbed and shot as a consequence. If you set up a website calling all Welsh people sheep shaggers do you think you'd be killed?

Oh no, it's a very set circumstance. Anglicans are not a radicalised or violent grouping; there are a lot of extreme Muslim groupings which are.

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Even if it's some universal truth that people will get angry about stuff like this then fair enough, but it's still clear that some faiths / ideologies will resort to violence a lot more readily than others, no?

That's precisely what I'm saying. People need to judge their comments closely.

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

If not wanting people to go round murdering people who have different viewpoints is now considered utopian posturing then tell me and I'll change into some sandles and put on Imagine.

No, but you have to take into account that there will always be some people who will be prepared to use violence illigitimately against a person with a different viewpoint. People should be aware of when this is a serious risk to themselves - as it was here.

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

That is what I'm suggesting. As I said to Nusselt, if there was a story saying "Girl is raped and murdered in XYZ area" and the first replies were "Well, she was dressed like a slut" then I'd hope we'd be fairly dismissive.

But rape isn't simply commited on the basis that a woman was wearing skimpy clothing. Not that I'm aware, anyway.

However, here, I think that you would have to mount a seriously bizzare argument to say that this man's actions, or rather, his words, weren't a significant factor in his own demise. And they were foolish, badly-chosen words. Possibly this is offensive to mention at the present time in the minds of some, but it is certainly true.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Marilyn Manson

However, here, I think that you would have to mount a seriously bizzare argument to say that this man's actions, or rather, his words, weren't a significant factor in his own demise. And they were foolish, badly-chosen words. Possibly this is offensive to mention at the present time in the minds of some, but it is certainly true.

Certainly he bears some causal responsibility for what happened. However he does not bear any moral responsibility for it. As I mentioned above if large numbers of Jewish people had not emigrated to Europe the holocaust would not have occurred. Does this mean we should hold the Jews morally and legally responsible for the holocaust? I would certainly hope not. If his actions were within his rights he should not be held accountable for crimes committed against him.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Certainly he bears some causal responsibility for what happened. However he does not bear any moral responsibility for it.

I'm not sure where or how you would draw the distinction.

I'm not suggesting that this fellow deserved to be killed, merely that he was foolish in his statements. I'm not saying these statements were simply foolish in themselves - although they were - but that their application in the present circumstance is very misguided. In a world where many of the currently existing Muslim groups - including many radicalised ones in Europe, and particularly in such a troubled country regarding this issue as Holland - can become seriously inflamed about this kind of thing, with no shortage of seriously fanatical individuals, the use of this kind of rhetoric I can only say was idiotic.

I would say that he excercised a certain disreguard and possible stupidity in his actions, which contributed to his killing. The fact that his killing itself was totally indefensible does not detract from this. A little more self-restraint and thought on his part could have possibly saved his life; seems like a damn mistake to me. That is not an unreasonable expectation, either.

If someone went into a room full of Arabs, called them sand-******s, etc, then they would likely get beaten-up, and most people would likely condemn them as an idiot, even if they almost certainly roundly rejected the assault. I'm not really sure why people should believe the same statements expressed in the realms of society at large to be a qualitatively different issue.

[JonnyBGood]

People are allowed to be idiots or make mistakes or stupid comments though. Much as people should be allowed to do things which are currently viewed as misguided, ie drink large amounts of coca-cola, smoke cigarettes, eat 50 hamburgers a week, he is allowed to express his opinion no matter what. He did not deserve any punishment or injury whatsoever for his actions, never mind death. The entire argument is academic.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

People are allowed to be idiots or make mistakes or stupid comments though.

Is not a question of being 'allowed'. It's a question of the likely consequences, whether these are also 'allowed' by the law, or in this case, not. If you don't want to face the probable consequences or risk that an action brings, then don't do it.

[JonnyBGood]

However if the possible, I would utterly refute the idea that anyone with anti-Islamic opinions has a greater than 50% chance of being killed, consequences of your actions are unlawful surely the problem lies with those willing to break the law? I say it again, he didn't deserve to be punished for his actions. I feel that people should be punished only when they deserve it, if you are of a different opinion so be it.

[Phang]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

However if the possible, I would utterly refute the idea that anyone with anti-Islamic opinions has a greater than 50% chance of being killed, consequences of your actions are unlawful surely the problem lies with those willing to break the law? I say it again, he didn't deserve to be punished for his actions. I feel that people should be punished only when they deserve it, if you are of a different opinion so be it.

'should' != 'should know he is likely to'

[JonnyBGood]

I don't follow. Are you implying I don't know my own opinions on morality?

[Phang]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

I don't follow. Are you implying I don't know my own opinions on morality?

no, i mean that your opinions on morality are not overly relevant.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

However if the possible, I would utterly refute the idea that anyone with anti-Islamic opinions has a greater than 50% chance of being killed,

That's a strange course of argument. This was a very high-profile man, by all accounts, and he had a particular reputation as a man with set opinions on Islam. If he choses to continually express said opinions on Islam both through on one hand, documentaries, and on the other, obscene abuse, then he is at a particular risk of being subjected to hate from certain groups. By virtue of his preocupations and his position, he is at a much greater risk than others.

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

consequences of your actions are unlawful surely the problem lies with those willing to break the law?

The issue arising from this is that there are people who will kill over words. That is a problem.

It depends, I suppose, on whether you care to disregard a response that, whilst being unlawful, would put you in physical danger. This man could have reasonably avoided such a risk, or at least substantially lessened it by simply applying himself more thoughtfully to the subject, which he chose not to do.

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

I say it again, he didn't deserve to be punished for his actions.

Strawman argument, as Nod would say.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Phang

no, i mean that your opinions on morality are not overly relevant.

Overly relevant to what? My opinion on whether or not van Gogh deserved to die? Do you expect me to express someone else's opinions in my posts in future?

[Phang]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Overly relevant to what? My opinion on whether or not van Gogh deserved to die? Do you expect me to express someone else's opinions in my posts in future?

nobody said he deserved to die, merely that he knew it was a distinct possibility which he could have avoided had he chosen to. you are disproving an argument made by nobody.

[Dace]

i always thought Koen was a lightweight