Progarchives.com has always (since 2002) relied on banners ads to cover web hosting fees and all. Please consider supporting us by giving monthly PayPal donations and help keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
Joined: June 22 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 16130
Posted: September 11 2010 at 13:41
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
I assume you're talking about Terry Jones. I basically agree that his announcement to burn the Qur'ans was stupid beyond belief. But accessory to murder? Come on. The evil, morally wrong action in this story is that people would kill over such a statement. If your solution is to censor free speech so as to not provoke any terrorist attacks, the terrorists have already won.
Of course it's wrong that people would kill over such a statement, but he knows only too well that they would, and that is incitement imo.
Hypothetical situation: You do something to provoke someone you KNOW is going to react violently towards someone else and kill them, then that is incitement - or arguably conspiracy to murder.
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
Posted: September 11 2010 at 14:13
So - let's not promote the idea of racial equality anymore, because somewhere out there there may be extreme racists who would use any statements to that effect as an excuse for murder?
Sorry, but this doesn't make any sense to me.
Either you have freedom of speech or you haven't - there is no middle ground. This has nothing to do with whether you agree with the actual content or whether you think it's a good idea ... as soon as you let that enter the discussion, you negate the concept of free speech.
Joined: May 01 2010
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 470
Posted: September 11 2010 at 14:33
Indeed
Mr.ProgFreak wrote:
You don't think this right should be defended?
I do. But this is not an issue of 'defending the right for freedom of expression' - it's an out of place digression. It's an issue of whether or not book burning is insignificant (no big deal) or not. Some seem to hold the belief that it really is. This belief is usually based on an (often oversimplified) sort-of logic. The fact that book burning historically has distasteful connotations, that this particular book, the Koran, has immense historical, cultural and also emotional value to millions of people tend to get very little attention. Thus the 'arguments' presented in the video don't work because they ignore so many aspects. The video communicates disrespect only to address the irrelevant (stupid) question of "what's the big deal about burning a book" and presents very narrow and contextless arguments in it's favour.
Mr.ProgFreak wrote:
Where's the difference? They're all symbols, and burning them is an extreme way to show your disagreement with what they stand for.
They may all be symbols, but symbols come in different shapes and colors. There are different sorts of symbolic content operating on different levels.
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
Posted: September 11 2010 at 14:38
^^ I don't think so. In this example it would be a slippery slope that might lead to Sharia law. Suppose the government stepped in and actually prohibited people from burning the Qur'an. Next would be Islamists starting riots and killing people because someone criticizes their book - so not only burning it is prohibited, but also any verbal criticism. Next they start riots because stores are selling pork meat and alcohol, or because people eat at daytime during Ramadan.
If this example sounds far fetched or ridiculous, then it's because in reality we don't let murderous mobs dictate legislation.
Edited by Mr ProgFreak - September 11 2010 at 14:39
Joined: June 09 2004
Location: Front Range
Status: Offline
Points: 7028
Posted: September 11 2010 at 14:45
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
^ Where's the difference? They're all symbols, and burning them is an extreme way to show your disagreement with what they stand for.
True for a few, but you are leaving out the a" Lemming Mentality", you know all those morons who in a blind frenzy start burning effigys, cars,human necklaces, who wouldn't know the difference between a good reason and a Burger King wrapper.
<font color=Brown>Music - The Sound Librarian
...As I venture through the slipstream, between the viaducts in your dreams...[/COLOR]
Joined: May 01 2010
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 470
Posted: September 11 2010 at 14:46
^^ I don't think so. In this example it would be a slippery slope that
might lead to Sharia law. Suppose the government stepped in and actually
prohibited people from burning the Qur'an. Next would be Islamists
starting riots and killing people because someone criticizes their book -
so not only burning it is prohibited, but also any verbal criticism.
Next they start riots because stores are selling pork meat and alcohol,
or because people eat at daytime during Ramadan.
If this example sounds far fetched or ridiculous, then it's because in reality we don't let murderous mobs dictate legislation.
those who oppose to book burning is suddenly being accused of being dictated by some murderous mob?
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
Posted: September 11 2010 at 16:45
Being against the burning is not the same is saying we should stop the burning. If you're for stopping the burning, then you're for harnessing the power of a murderous mob. Then you're using the same sort of mentality that leads to those mobs.
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Joined: May 27 2005
Location: NE Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 28057
Posted: September 11 2010 at 19:48
I guess it's too much to ask for people not to get their panties in a twist because someone they don't even know across the world is going to light some paper with ink on it on fire.
Religious people getting angry at others treating their "sacred" stories as meaningless kindling? SHOCKING!
Joined: November 18 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 4900
Posted: September 11 2010 at 19:51
Paravion wrote:
Again - I don't think it makes sense to speak about 'choice'. Freedom of speech has limits, surely. It's misplaced to elevate it to an extend where it becomes legitimate to do harm, insult and severely provoke other people just for the sake of it.
If someone chooses to react violently to someone's else's mere words or expression, that's on them. The moment you start putting limits on freedom of speech, you've opened the door for everyone to jump in and stifle it further and further. Why should religion or a sensitive person's feelings be so much more important than anything else? You want freedom, you have to support your fellow man's right to speak, even if you may not always agree with what the other guy is saying at the time.
Joined: May 26 2008
Location: Declined
Status: Offline
Points: 16715
Posted: September 11 2010 at 22:05
Blacksword wrote:
Hypothetical situation: You do something to provoke someone you KNOW is going to react violently towards someone else and kill them, then that is incitement - or arguably conspiracy to murder.
No, it's not a frickin conspiracy if the person being obnoxious doesn't want someone to kill anybody. You can't hold somebody responsible for the reactions of others.
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
^ Where's the difference? They're all symbols, and burning them is an extreme way to show your disagreement with what they stand for.
^ Where's the difference? They're all symbols, and burning them is an extreme way to show your disagreement with what they stand for.
True for a few, but you are leaving out the a" Lemming Mentality", you know all those morons who in a blind frenzy start burning effigys, cars,human necklaces, who wouldn't know the difference between a good reason and a Burger King wrapper.
A clumsy expression certainly but not one worthy of me rushing out to buy some kindling
Seriously though, I think Mike's use of 'what they stand for' re symbols is at the heart of the issue here i.e. how can you reach an acceptable consensus of interpretation if the symbol(s) in question were created in a culture and context completely alien to our own ?
Unequivocal statements endorsing the killing of individuals who are considered to have blasphemed scriptures is entirely another matter. I'm thinking of the fatwa declared on author Salman Rushdie here (which was as indefensible an action as those atrocities directed by someone like Charles Manson)
Again - I don't think it makes sense to speak about 'choice'. Freedom of speech has limits, surely. It's misplaced to elevate it to an extend where it becomes legitimate to do harm, insult and severely provoke other people just for the sake of it.
If someone chooses to react violently to someone's else's mere words or expression, that's on them. The moment you start putting limits on freedom of speech, you've opened the door for everyone to jump in and stifle it further and further. Why should religion or a sensitive person's feelings be so much more important than anything else? You want freedom, you have to support your fellow man's right to speak, even if you may not always agree with what the other guy is saying at the time.
At the surface level this seems reasonable but there are already clear limits on freedom of speech in most western democracies e.g. slander and defamation legislation has existed for a very long time indeed and there is in some European nations the legal concept of 'crimes of passion' - (think it's called somewhat unhelpfully 'temporary insanity' in the US?) which won't get you completely off the hook but carries a diminished penalty on account of mitigating factors of undue provocation etc.
Joined: August 11 2009
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 8815
Posted: September 12 2010 at 00:37
JLocke wrote:
If someone chooses to react violently to someone's else's mere words or expression, that's on them.
I think this is as dangerous a thought as any of the statements here about not being allowed to burn things being a restriction of freedom of speech.
There are two things to consider. The first is that we are human beings who all have emotions and who respond to what it is that we see and experience. I think people tend to forget that a lot in these discussions.
The second is the assumption that we should just be able to say anything we want. JLocke, I want to set you on fire and I think that everything you do is worthless. I think you are fat and ugly and have no value to society. Oh, don't react to that though, because it's just words, right? They have no weight or value. Obviously this is just said purely for example (I've never seen you nor do I know much about what you do ), but if I came up to you and said those things meaningfully - well! That would be a completely different matter, wouldn't it? And sure, we are expected to keep hold on our emotions, but there are limits for every person, and it's best not to test those limits without a very good reason.
Burning a Quran is not just setting ink and paper on fire. It is also not just disagreement. It's disrespectful! I think people forget that. When someone burns something that has meaning to you, it's better to think of it as a disagreement as a way to keep your emotions in check. But in reality it's disrespectful. And with the freedom of speech comes the responsibility to accept the response to what it is you say and do.
I mean, sure, maybe to some of you burning a book is no big deal. But then why would you do it? To the people who burn the books, they are doing so for a reason, to send a clear and loud message to those who value the book. Trying to reduce it to paper and ink burning is being intentionally blind.
Joined: May 26 2008
Location: Declined
Status: Offline
Points: 16715
Posted: September 12 2010 at 01:23
TheGazzardian wrote:
There are two things to consider. The first is that we are human beings who all have emotions and who respond to what it is that we see and experience. I think people tend to forget that a lot in these discussions.
People will think I'm joking, but I'm being 100% serious here: f**k emotions.
Is anybody here even arguing that burning a Quaran isn't disrespectful? I'm not sure why you went on that tangent.
Edited by Henry Plainview - September 12 2010 at 03:10
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
Posted: September 12 2010 at 02:49
Paravion wrote:
^^ I don't think so. In this example it would be a slippery slope that
might lead to Sharia law. Suppose the government stepped in and actually
prohibited people from burning the Qur'an. Next would be Islamists
starting riots and killing people because someone criticizes their book -
so not only burning it is prohibited, but also any verbal criticism.
Next they start riots because stores are selling pork meat and alcohol,
or because people eat at daytime during Ramadan.
If this example sounds far fetched or ridiculous, then it's because in reality we don't let murderous mobs dictate legislation.
those who oppose to book burning is suddenly being accused of being dictated by some murderous mob?
Yes. But only if you insist on making this generalization and ignoring motives and situations.
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
Posted: September 12 2010 at 03:19
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
^^^ So - you're saying that we should let the government decide in which cases freedom of speech should be granted?
I'm not saying that it's necessarily a good thing to provoke or deliberately insult people. But I also think that it's impossible to impartially say which statements should be permitted, and which should be censored.
I assume you meant to direct this towards Black.
No:
Equality wrote:
Look freedom of speech is fine, but it has limits. If you're going to
hurt someone's feelings, that's just not cool. If the government
decides that you're gonna upset someone then like it should stop you
because people have a right not to get insulted. I heard that this girl
onetime killed herself because people made fun of her and like that's
not right. So the government really knows best here and we should listen
becasue they're just protecting us.
Sounds a lot like you want the government to arbitrarily decide where freedom of speech ends, or in which situations exceptions need to be made.
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
Posted: September 12 2010 at 03:28
TheGazzardian wrote:
There are two things to consider. The first is that we are human beings who all have emotions and who respond to what it is that we see and experience. I think people tend to forget that a lot in these discussions.
That's totally irrelevant to me in this discussion.
TheGazzardian wrote:
The second is the assumption that we should just be able to say anything we want. JLocke, I want to set you on fire and I think that everything you do is worthless. I think you are fat and ugly and have no value to society. Oh, don't react to that though, because it's just words, right? They have no weight or value. Obviously this is just said purely for example (I've never seen you nor do I know much about what you do ), but if I came up to you and said those things meaningfully - well! That would be a completely different matter, wouldn't it? And sure, we are expected to keep hold on our emotions, but there are limits for every person, and it's best not to test those limits without a very good reason.
If you say to me "you're an idiot" then that's perfectly fine and doesn't hurt anyone. I can call you an idiot back, or I can just ignore it, or make fun of you for descending to that level. However, when you threaten to hurt or even kill me, that is something entirely different.
TheGazzardian wrote:
Burning a Quran is not just setting ink and paper on fire. It is also not just disagreement. It's disrespectful!
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
Posted: September 12 2010 at 03:31
Chris S wrote:
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
^ Where's the difference? They're all symbols, and burning them is an extreme way to show your disagreement with what they stand for.
True for a few, but you are leaving out the a" Lemming Mentality", you know all those morons who in a blind frenzy start burning effigys, cars,human necklaces, who wouldn't know the difference between a good reason and a Burger King wrapper.
I didn't forget about those morons. I intentionally left them out because it's them who need to change their attitude, not me.
I agree with him - we must not give in to murderous mobs.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
This page was generated in 0.293 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
On the burning of books ...
Topic Options
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
), but if I came up to you and said those things meaningfully - well! That would be a completely different matter, wouldn't it? And sure, we are expected to keep hold on our emotions, but there are limits for every person, and it's best not to test those limits without a very good reason.