On the burning of books ...

Equality 7-2521 wrote: Rabid wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: Rabid wrote: 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.    Does that mean that Christians don't have a general respect for the Qu'uran?   I wasn't trying to imply that. Before 9/11 I would say that Christians have a  general respect for the Qu'ran. It's hard to tell now. I would still say yes. Catholics certainly do.    You did'nt need to imply it. Your 'Freedom of Speech' has given the opportunity for some pseudo-religous maniac from Florida to imply it for you.     Do you think before/as/after you type?

Explain, please?

Equality 7-2521 wrote: Rabid wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: It seems like people are trying to rationalize away principles that are fundamental to a free society for the purpose of some degree of safety. The attempt is to punish someone for harm others might do. It's to criminalize an action because of how other people may act. It also ignores the ways that governments have snuffed out ideas it doesn't approve of once its people give it authority to police speech.    So you're prepared to defend the right to free speech, even if it costs innocent peoples lives?   In the UK, burning a Qu'uran is considered a crime, either imflammatory, for the purpose of racial hatred, or at the very least, religious intolerance. Sure, we've got freedom of speech, but we're not so dumb as to not know when that speech will offend people.   Btw, did you defend the right to fly a plane into the WTC ?   THAT is the REALITY of the situation.     You're points are so illogical. You treat freedom of speech as if its some abstract that doesn't involve people. Peoples lives and happiness are effected when we curtail it. So we can't just act like its some pure abstract.   Yes I am prepared to defend it. What is the proximate cause of the deaths? It is not the burning of books. It is the people who decide to react violently to ideas or actions they don't like that cause the deaths. What you're talking about is potentially curtailing any behavior if one chooses to react violently to it.   The reality is that the people who flew planes into the WTC were committing an act of murder. It has nothing to do with freedom of speech. They were wrong. And in reality they did so because not because of our ideas, but because of our invasive actions on their side of the world.

Rabid wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: Rabid wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: It seems like people are trying to rationalize away principles that are fundamental to a free society for the purpose of some degree of safety. The attempt is to punish someone for harm others might do. It's to criminalize an action because of how other people may act. It also ignores the ways that governments have snuffed out ideas it doesn't approve of once its people give it authority to police speech.    So you're prepared to defend the right to free speech, even if it costs innocent peoples lives?   In the UK, burning a Qu'uran is considered a crime, either imflammatory, for the purpose of racial hatred, or at the very least, religious intolerance. Sure, we've got freedom of speech, but we're not so dumb as to not know when that speech will offend people.   Btw, did you defend the right to fly a plane into the WTC ?   THAT is the REALITY of the situation.     You're points are so illogical. You treat freedom of speech as if its some abstract that doesn't involve people. Peoples lives and happiness are effected when we curtail it. So we can't just act like its some pure abstract.   Yes I am prepared to defend it. What is the proximate cause of the deaths? It is not the burning of books. It is the people who decide to react violently to ideas or actions they don't like that cause the deaths. What you're talking about is potentially curtailing any behavior if one chooses to react violently to it.   The reality is that the people who flew planes into the WTC were committing an act of murder. It has nothing to do with freedom of speech. They were wrong. And in reality they did so because not because of our ideas, but because of our invasive actions on their side of the world.   So who do I think that 'Freedom of Speech' involves? Yaks? You seem happy enough to curtail other peoples lives and happiness, as long as you feel you've got the right to allow someone to promote burning a religious text, through Freedom of Expression.  For a nation that seems SO decicated to the Freedom of Speech, you also seem SO determined not to listen to anyone else.   And no, I don't condone terrorist attacks, in any way, shape or form.   Do you think?

The thing is I'm not curtailing anyone's life or happiness.

It will. You eating pork will upset some Muslims.

Rabid wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: It will. You eating pork will upset some Muslims.   Upsetting someone is not causing them harm. We don't restrict actions because they upset someone. We do it when it harms someone.   Either way, I'm not upsetting anyone.   But eating pork is not exactly the same as burning a Qu'ran, and rubbing it in peoples faces, by world-wide distribution, through the Internet.   The reality of the situation is this.   Muslim extrememists WILL attack you if you offend their religion. Have'nt you learned anything  from the 9/11 attacks? Surely, there must be a point where Freedom of Speech/Expression gives in to common sense.

So we should bow and scrape and fear to offend Muslims? I hate to sound cliche, but if that is the lesson of 9/11 then the terrorists have won. I for one refuse to give in to such intimidation tactics, for the same reason that I would never allow myself to be blackmailed.

thellama73 wrote: Rabid wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: It will. You eating pork will upset some Muslims.   Upsetting someone is not causing them harm. We don't restrict actions because they upset someone. We do it when it harms someone.   Either way, I'm not upsetting anyone.   But eating pork is not exactly the same as burning a Qu'ran, and rubbing it in peoples faces, by world-wide distribution, through the Internet.   The reality of the situation is this.   Muslim extrememists WILL attack you if you offend their religion. Have'nt you learned anything  from the 9/11 attacks? Surely, there must be a point where Freedom of Speech/Expression gives in to common sense.       So we should bow and scrape and fear to offend Muslims? I hate to sound cliche, but if that is the lesson of 9/11 then the terrorists have won. I for one refuse to give in to such intimidation tactics, for the same reason that I would never allow myself to be blackmailed.

Equality 7-2521 wrote: Rabid wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: It will. You eating pork will upset some Muslims.   Upsetting someone is not causing them harm. We don't restrict actions because they upset someone. We do it when it harms someone.   Either way, I'm not upsetting anyone.   But eating pork is not exactly the same as burning a Qu'ran, and rubbing it in peoples faces, by world-wide distribution, through the Internet.   The reality of the situation is this.   Muslim extrememists WILL attack you if you offend their religion. Have'nt you learned anything  from the 9/11 attacks? Surely, there must be a point where Freedom of Speech/Expression gives in to common sense.         The principle doesn't change in the two examples. If you can curtail speech because it can upset someone and incite them into murder, then you can curtail eating habits. You can also demand all women wear burqas if bikini clad women would incite violence. You're paving the way to tyranny.   I'm aware of the lessons of the 9/11 attacks. For one, like I said the main reason for the attacks was our foreign policy, not our domestic embrace of freedoms.   Who decides where freedom of speech ends? Do you? What's the criteria?   Why are you passing the blame from the ones who initiate violence to the ones who express their freedoms? You're trying to blame people who committ innoculous acts for the actions of those who committ atrocities.

Rabid wrote: thellama73 wrote: Rabid wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: It will. You eating pork will upset some Muslims.   Upsetting someone is not causing them harm. We don't restrict actions because they upset someone. We do it when it harms someone.   Either way, I'm not upsetting anyone.   But eating pork is not exactly the same as burning a Qu'ran, and rubbing it in peoples faces, by world-wide distribution, through the Internet.   The reality of the situation is this.   Muslim extrememists WILL attack you if you offend their religion. Have'nt you learned anything  from the 9/11 attacks? Surely, there must be a point where Freedom of Speech/Expression gives in to common sense.       So we should bow and scrape and fear to offend Muslims? I hate to sound cliche, but if that is the lesson of 9/11 then the terrorists have won. I for one refuse to give in to such intimidation tactics, for the same reason that I would never allow myself to be blackmailed.   So you feel that not burning a Qu'ran is bowing and scraping as to not offend? How uncivilized.

The argument that you were making is that burning Korans offends Muslims, offended Muslims = dead Americans, therefore you shouldn't burn Korans.
I merely remove the first premise, which doesn't change your argument in its essence.
Offended Muslims = dead Americans, therefore you shouldn't offend Muslims.
I don't know if you've noticed, but the kind of Muslims who blow people up are rather thin skinned. If you follow through with the position you have stated, you would have to conclude that we should do whatever the Muslims want, because otherwise they might hurt us. This, in my view, is cowardice.

Equality 7-2521 wrote: Rabid wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: Rabid wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: It will. You eating pork will upset some Muslims.   Upsetting someone is not causing them harm. We don't restrict actions because they upset someone. We do it when it harms someone.   Either way, I'm not upsetting anyone.   But eating pork is not exactly the same as burning a Qu'ran, and rubbing it in peoples faces, by world-wide distribution, through the Internet.   The reality of the situation is this.   Muslim extrememists WILL attack you if you offend their religion. Have'nt you learned anything  from the 9/11 attacks? Surely, there must be a point where Freedom of Speech/Expression gives in to common sense.         The principle doesn't change in the two examples. If you can curtail speech because it can upset someone and incite them into murder, then you can curtail eating habits. You can also demand all women wear burqas if bikini clad women would incite violence. You're paving the way to tyranny.   I'm aware of the lessons of the 9/11 attacks. For one, like I said the main reason for the attacks was our foreign policy, not our domestic embrace of freedoms.   Who decides where freedom of speech ends? Do you? What's the criteria?   Why are you passing the blame from the ones who initiate violence to the ones who express their freedoms? You're trying to blame people who committ innoculous acts for the actions of those who committ atrocities.   The criteria ends at not losing another two friends in a bus-bomb attack and keeping my mouth shut, and giving yet more reason for Muslims to hate me.     Thanks for responding to my reasoned questions with an appeal to emotion. More of your airtight logic.

Edited by Rabid - September 13 2010 at 16:56

well my theorie is that this pastor is just "jealous" for the spotlight others have got for angering the muslim socciety, he is jealous at Salman Rushdie for the publication he got with Satanic Verses by all the fuzz and the fatwa he got out if it (which made him rich and the book a bestseller), It made me read the book as well.

Edited by aginor - September 13 2010 at 17:57