| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
Blacksword 
Prog Reviewer
Joined: June 22 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 16130
|
 Posted: September 12 2010 at 04:48 |
 Henry Plainview wrote:
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. <span ="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times; font-size: medium; line-height: normal; "><div style=": rgb255, 255, 255; margin-left: 1px; margin-top: 1px; margin-right: 1px; margin-bottom: 1px; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; color: rgb0, 0, 0; font-weight: normal; font-size: 12px; line-height: 1.2; border-top-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-color: initial; ">
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. |
Yes, but some symbols are stronger than others. |
How do you know that he doesn't want violence on the back of this action. Ok, it's possible he doesn't but lets be realistic about this. Unless he's had his head up his rear end for the last nine years, or has been living in a cave, he'll know full well how fragile and potentially explosive the relationship is between Islam and Christianity. What else would he hope to achieve by the burning of the sacred texts of this faith.
In terms of accessory/conspiracy to murder, it would have to be down to a court, I guess to decide what his actual motivations were. From where I'm sitting those motivations are obvious. I'm surprised they're not others.
|
|
Ultimately bored by endless ecstasy!
|
 |
Mr ProgFreak
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
|
Posted: September 12 2010 at 04:53 |
|
A few years ago there was a news story about a man in Sweden who got beaten up by some Muslims during Ramadan because he was eating in broad daylight. Would you say that the proper solution in order to prevent further violence would be to tell everyone to adhere to Muslim rules in order to not offend any other Muslims, or to speak out against Muslims applying their laws to Non-Muslims? Please tell me how this is any different from this situation.
|
|
Equality 7-2521
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
|
Posted: September 12 2010 at 06:15 |
That post was intended as the most obviously sarcastic post I could have made. I guess you haven't seen much of the libertarian thread.
|
|
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
|
ExittheLemming
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 19 2007
Location: Penal Colony
Status: Offline
Points: 11420
|
Posted: September 12 2010 at 06:19 |
Perhaps they like, don't know like when you is, like messin' with their heads like bro 
|
|
Paravion
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 01 2010
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 470
|
Posted: September 12 2010 at 07:47 |
Jlocke wrote:
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. |
I never said religion and sensitive persons' feelings are more important than everything else, but they are aspects that I think need to be taken into account in an issue like this.
Neither is 'freedom of expression' more important than everything else, as some seem to belive and in cases like this tend to use it as an exuse to insult other people.
Freedom of expression has limits (in many countrys at least). In Denmark you are not allowed to utter racist or homophobic expressions - and that is legislation I support fully. I don't see how such limits threatens "my fellow mans right to speak" in a manner that ultimately threatens my or mankinds freedom. You have to have a very dark, distrustful and paranoid viewpoint to assume this to be the case. And to illustrate it with the usual slippery-slope 'sort-of' argument is just too speculative. I don't buy that - at all. I may be a tad too naive, but that suits me fine.
Mostly it's a a derailing of the debate to make this an issue of 'freedom of expression'. It's not seriously treathened becuase some people think it's an immenesly stupid idea to burn books and work in favor of action not to be carried out.
JLocke wrote:
If someone chooses... |
I don't follow that way of thinking at all. It seems like you mean that people who gets offended, hurt, provoked, harmed etc. by some disrespectful action or utterance made an actual choice to be so. I really don't think so. It's merely a fact of the world that millions of Muslims will get seriously offended by an action of Koran burning and some foolish extremist will most likely act out their frustration in a violent manner. I would like to aviod an incident like this.
To think that it's just their fault, that they could (if they were as enlightened as you) just have made another choice, is ignoring complicated socio-cultural facts of the world and ascribing too much importance to (your own) rational capacity, that somehow tells you that this is ultimately an issue of freedom of expression? I just don't understand..
|
|
Textbook
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 08 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 3281
|
Posted: September 12 2010 at 07:59 |
Am I the only person beginning to suspect that MrProgFreak actually is TheAmazingAtheist?
Anyway, both sides are right. Burning korans is offensive but it's also legal. What the koran burners are doing is entirely pointless and offensive but something being pointless and offensive doesn't make it a crime, otherwise the aforementioned South Park creators would've been in jail a long time ago. And of course, the notion that violent retaliation against the burners is somehow inevitable or justified is also nonsense.
Is it possible that koran burning could rile the burners up to commit more serious and actually illegal acts of Muslim persecution? Yes it is, which is why the police should attend all such events as observers, just as they do New Years Eve gatherings and so on where public disturbances are likely. But if all the people do is burn books and make angry speeches (which do not incite illegal acts) all they should do is watch. Even if they are not required to act, I think a police presence will dampen spirits and reduce the possibility of naughtiness and perhaps lower attendance.
|
|
Rabid
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 20 2008
Location: Bridge of Knows
Status: Offline
Points: 512
|
Posted: September 12 2010 at 09:20 |
I've never seen a Muslim burning a copy of the Christian bible.
|
|
"...the thing IS, to put a motor in yourself..."
|
|
Mr ProgFreak
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
|
Posted: September 12 2010 at 10:05 |
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
That post was intended as the most obviously sarcastic post I could have made. I guess you haven't seen much of the libertarian thread.
|
Obviously sarcastic? You can't be certain that all viewers follow all threads all the time. IMO at least in serious topics adding an explicit "  " to sarcastic posts is not a bad idea.
|
|
Equality 7-2521
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
|
Posted: September 12 2010 at 10:45 |
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
That post was intended as the most obviously sarcastic post I could have made. I guess you haven't seen much of the libertarian thread.
|
Obviously sarcastic? You can't be certain that all viewers follow all threads all the time. IMO at least in serious topics adding an explicit "" to sarcastic posts is not a bad idea.
|
That's true, but I hate emoticons and even without any knowledge of my stance the diction and tone of it are clearly different than any post I write.
And if people mistake sarcasm for reality it just adds to the humor.
|
|
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
|
Equality 7-2521
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
|
Posted: September 12 2010 at 10:45 |
Rabid wrote:
I've never seen a Muslim burning a copy of the Christian bible.
|
That's because they have a general respect for it.
|
|
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
|
Slartibartfast
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam
Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630
|
Posted: September 12 2010 at 11:43 |
|
You know, if burning books gets your rocks off, then go ahead and do it. Just get your permit. Right now we are in a season where this kind of crap can start a wildfire and if the local authorities say no to an outdoor spectacle of burning books, then too freakin' bad.
|
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened... 
|
|
TheGazzardian
Prog Reviewer
Joined: August 11 2009
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 8815
|
Posted: September 12 2010 at 13:48 |
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
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.
|
I fail to see how this is irrelevant, when we are discussing something that is inflammatory to peoples emotions - especially given the context of the comment that I quoted before saying this.
< ="utf-8">
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
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. |
This is what I'm getting at - the notion that it doesn't hurt anyone. Emotional damage is a lot harder to measure than physical damage but it is real. I'm not saying that we can't say mean things to each other, don't get me wrong. But I'm saying that to assume that words are just words and have no weight or value is completely ignorant of the fact that human beings are social creatures who thrive on the approval of their peers and shrivel in its absence. Furthermore, when you have a good idea what kind of reaction an act is likely to get before you do it (such as burning a Quran offending a lot of people and inciting some of them to violent action), just because you wouldn't react the same does not mean that you are completely innocent of the consequences of your actions. I repeat - with the freedom of speech comes the responsibility to accept the consequences.
< ="utf-8">
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
TheGazzardian wrote:
Burning a Quran is not just setting ink and paper on fire. It is also not just disagreement. It's disrespectful!
|
f**k respect. Blasphemy is a victimless crime.
|
You'll have to explain this one to me, I don't quite see your logic.
|
|
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557
|
Posted: September 12 2010 at 14:03 |
I don't understand how people can describe the Church as enemy of the culture and justifies the burn of ANY book
Then the Nazis were right, they protested against Jewish books, so they burned them.
HAVEN'T WE LEARN SOMETHING FROM HISTORY???????
First we burn books, then art that we find offensive, then symbols then people.
Iván
Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - September 12 2010 at 14:05
|
|
|
|
Mr ProgFreak
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
|
Posted: September 12 2010 at 14:30 |
TheGazzardian wrote:
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
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.
|
I fail to see how this is irrelevant, when we are discussing something that is inflammatory to peoples emotions - especially given the context of the comment that I quoted before saying this.
|
It's irrelevant because the purpose of freedom of speech is not to prevent people from being offended on the emotional level.
TheGazzardian wrote:
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
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. |
This is what I'm getting at - the notion that it doesn't hurt anyone. Emotional damage is a lot harder to measure than physical damage but it is real. I'm not saying that we can't say mean things to each other, don't get me wrong. But I'm saying that to assume that words are just words and have no weight or value is completely ignorant of the fact that human beings are social creatures who thrive on the approval of their peers and shrivel in its absence. Furthermore, when you have a good idea what kind of reaction an act is likely to get before you do it (such as burning a Quran offending a lot of people and inciting some of them to violent action), just because you wouldn't react the same does not mean that you are completely innocent of the consequences of your actions. I repeat - with the freedom of speech comes the responsibility to accept the consequences.
|
In a society where there is true freedom of speech there would be no consequences. The very principle of "protected speech" is that people have the right to make such statements without having to fear negative consequences. The bottom line: If you live in a society which grants free speech and your religious beliefs are of a nature which results in you getting offended by the free speech of other persons - in order to never get offended you should either leave the country or isolate yourself from any communication.
TheGazzardian wrote:
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
TheGazzardian wrote:
Burning a Quran is not just setting ink and paper on fire. It is also not just disagreement. It's disrespectful!
|
f**k respect. Blasphemy is a victimless crime.
|
You'll have to explain this one to me, I don't quite see your logic. |
I respect your right to practice any religion, to hold any belief, and to make any statement that is protected by free speech (e.g. it's not slander). The kind of respect that you're talking about I do not accept, since it would destroy the rights that I do respect, and which I think are vital to preserving freedom.
|
|
Mr ProgFreak
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
|
Posted: September 12 2010 at 14:33 |
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
Rabid wrote:
I've never seen a Muslim burning a copy of the Christian bible.
|
That's because they have a general respect for it. |
I honestly think that this sarcasm thing is not working properly.
|
|
TheGazzardian
Prog Reviewer
Joined: August 11 2009
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 8815
|
Posted: September 12 2010 at 14:49 |
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
In a society where there is true freedom of speech there would be no consequences. The very principle of "protected speech" is that people have the right to make such statements without having to fear negative consequences. The bottom line: If you live in a society which grants free speech and your religious beliefs are of a nature which results in you getting offended by the free speech of other persons - in order to never get offended you should either leave the country or isolate yourself from any communication. |
The only way I can see where words can have no consequence is if they have no meaning. The freedom of speech does not equate to the freedom of responsibility for what it is that you say. Truthfully - I cannot understand this viewpoint at all. Consequences can be good or bad. Why say anything at all, if you don't want people to react? May as well stand on the corner spouting random words all day long.
If that is what free speech is, then I don't want it. I don't want asshats running around saying offensive things about homosexuals, making racist comments, attacking religions, and spreading ignorance, because of the belief that they should be able to say so because their words have no meaning and have no consequences, positive or negative. This is an irresponsible approach to the way human beings should treat each other.
I know you're not a Christian, and neither am I, but does not being a Christian mean that we should discard our compassion in the name of some idealized freedom that may never be met?
|
|
Any Colour You Like
Prog Reviewer
Joined: May 15 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 12294
|
Posted: September 12 2010 at 16:20 |
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
HAVEN'T WE LEARN SOMETHING FROM HISTORY???????
First we burn books, then art that we find offensive, then symbols then people.
Iván |
This. See my earlier posts.
|
|
JJLehto
Prog Reviewer
Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 34550
|
Posted: September 12 2010 at 16:21 |
Any Colour You Like wrote:
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
HAVEN'T WE LEARN SOMETHING FROM HISTORY???????
First we burn books, then art that we find offensive, then symbols then people.
Iván |
This.
See my earlier posts.
|
No. History is depressing. Much better to just ignore all that junk. So like, burning books is not bad right?
|
|
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557
|
Posted: September 12 2010 at 17:01 |
Hegel said: "We learn from history that we never learn anything from history"
How truth sounds now!
Iván
|
|
|
|
Any Colour You Like
Prog Reviewer
Joined: May 15 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 12294
|
Posted: September 12 2010 at 17:04 |
Any Colour You Like on the first page of this thread wrote:
Well, let the lessons of history be the harshest critic of all.
|
|
|
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
On the burning of books ...
