Koran Burning and Freedom of Speech, Part II

What kind of responsibility?[/quote]
Moral responsibility. He intentionally committed an act knowing that it would likely lead to death, serious injury or at least greatly heightened discord.

That’s a dangerous idea, IMO. Again, who decides what acts have or lack redeeming value?[/quote]
Each of us decides. It’s not dangerous at all. In fact, I expect your mother and father taught you the same basic principle more than 40 years ago. Do unto others as you’d have others do unto you, be nice to others, don’t pick on people, don’t cause trouble, etc. Is that really so hard to comprehend?

Btw, you keep saying it’s ONLY burning a book. Well that’s YOUR subjective view. To many muslims it’s apparently not ONLY burning a book: it’s one of the most extreme offenses imaginable, and clearly justifies the use of extreme and indiscriminate violence in retaliation, such that the violence is not, in their minds, a willful, voluntary (much less fanatical) act, but is the sole, logical response dictated by Allah. That’s THEIR subjective view. I agree that your subjective view, in that regard, sounds more reasonable, but it’s still a subjective opinion. Therefore, the preacher was at fault for disregarding their subjective views, knowing the likely consequences, when it would have been perfectly simple and harmless for him to refrain from ONLY burning the book, in order to respect the subjective view of others that differ from his own subjective views. He should have recalled those basic lessons from childhood.

I wouldn’t outlaw the preachers acts or hold him legally accountable, but I would hold him morally accountable – I do believe he shares some of the blame for the deaths. But for his knowing, intentional acts, they wouldn’t have died.

the chief: Yes, it accomplishes freedom of speech and exposes people for being medieval fuckwits. What did Monty Python accomplish with The Meaning of Life? Perhaps the Archbishop of Canterbury at the time should have gone and burnt down a film studio, just so people would respect his beliefs? Perhaps if a ten year old tells some six year olds that Santa Claus doesn’t exist and one hundred six year olds go and beat up some other ten year olds, that’s the fault of the first ten year old?

suiyuan: So you’d back down if someone threatened to kill others if women weren’t subjugated or homosexuality outlawed? Hang on, hypothetical, so we’re going to have problems here.

Mother Theresa: If I still believed in the Tooth Fairy, I’d want someone to enlighten me, not respect my childish belief system.

If they have a subjective view and I have a subjective view and someone else has a subjective view no one’s subjective view should be put on a pedestal. All subjective views should be subject to debate and ridicule. That’s what it means to live in a free society. People don’t have the right not to be offended.

OK, I’m going to have to recuse myself from further involvement here.
Where I come from, burning books and other symbols, irrespective of their significance, is the sole domain of Nazis, Cossacks, and sociopaths posing as authority figures.
I didn’t realize there were actually people walking around, and I’m giving you guys the benefit of the doubt that you aren’t card-carrying members of any of the above organizations, who somehow believed such actions to be in any way defensible.

Further discourse would be futile.

I don’t think he accomplished freedom of speech. I think that was accomplished before he came on the scene. Doing any old stupid act does not somehow accomplish something under freedom of speech. :unamused:

And we didn’t need his medieval fucktardery to expose theirs. I knew he was an idiot before he burned the Koran. I knew those killers were idiots before they killed. So the only thing he accomplished was using his fuckwittery to expose theirs, the end result being deaths of innocent people.

[quote=“GuyInTaiwan”]That’s what it means to live in a free society. People don’t have the right not to be offended.[/quote]And being fit for the society of others does not mean being deliberately offensive.

So, the killers have Primary and Overwhelming responsibility. Or, as suiyuan posted, Sole responsibility.

So, the preacher didn’t violate any law. His act was legal in the jurisdiction where he committed it. And the killers are Primarily and Overwhelmingly and Solely responsible. But, you think the preacher is some way responsible?

OK. Let me ask this. Let’s say that a guy has a business meeting in Singapore. Before going to that, he goes on a holiday in Australia, where he smokes a bit of weed on his last night there (because he knows he will not be able to score any weed in Singapore). Then he flys to Singapore. He’s bleary eyed from partying the night before. Singapore Customs decides to do a drug test on him and the same comes up positive for weed. He protests that he smoked the weed in Australia, and maybe it was legal there, at least in the amount he smoked (if not, let’s just say he was in Canada). Do you agree that the guy should be in trouble in Singapore for smoking a bit of weed in Australia (or Canada)? Drugs cause mass outrage in Singapore.

What kind of responsibility?

So what about the weed smoker? He intentionally committed an act with little or no redeeming value with the prior nkowledge that it was likely to cause outrage in Singapore.

OK, what if we’re talking about that muslem woman from Pakistan or whereever who had made the movie in the netherlands that was critical of Islam? She definitely knew that her making that movie would enrage a certain segment of the Muslim population. What if because her movie enraged some radical fundie Moslems, those fundie Moslems went on a rampage and killed some innocent people? Would you blame that woman? Would she have some responsibility?

I agree that all people have a responsibility to avoid killing others. I do not agree that we have a responsibility to walk on eggshells to avoid enraging others. What if some group decided that drinking beer has no redeeming value and that unless we stop imbibing, that group is likely to go apeshit?

So, what if the crazies decide that drinking beer and having sex on Monday is intolerable to them? Should we all appease them and refrain from beer and sex on Mondays. Would that be OK with you? Or, would you think that’s ridiculous?

I agree.

Yes. I agree.

So, you would be willing, for example, to refrain from doing something that has no redeeming value in the subjective view of some group on the other side of the planet if you knew that such something in order to respect the subjective view of those others?

And what do you think of artists who ridicule other religions? Should we forbid such art?

Well, that’s not correct. The guy burned a book in Florida. The killers on the other side of the planet were not forced or compelled to respond in any way at all.

[quote=“Tigerman”]OK. Let me ask this. Let’s say that a guy has a business meeting in Singapore. Before going to that, he goes on a holiday in Australia, where he smokes a bit of weed on his last night there (because he knows he will not be able to score any weed in Singapore). Then he flys to Singapore. He’s bleary eyed from partying the night before. Singapore Customs decides to do a drug test on him and the same comes up positive for weed. He protests that he smoked the weed in Australia, and maybe it was legal there, at least in the amount he smoked (if not, let’s just say he was in Canada). Do you agree that the guy should be in trouble in Singapore for smoking a bit of weed in Australia (or Canada)? Drugs cause mass outrage in Singapore.[/quote] :laughing: Huh?

[quote=“Tigerman”]I do not agree that we have a responsibility to walk on eggshells to avoid enraging others.[/quote]I agree. I would argue that deciding NOT to burn the Koran after being warned that it would likely cause deaths doesn’t equate to walking on eggshells.

I didn’t expect you to get that. :laughing:

MT made a statement re jurisdiction:

the chief: I wouldn’t burn a book either, but I believe people should have the right to do so if they choose. That’s not the same as forcing people to burn books or taking books from others to burn them.

Jaboney: You’re kidding, right? What do you think of any political activist or comedian? They do what they do knowing it’s probably going to offend people. That’s the whole point. That’s the whole point of us being grown ups, that I can turn on the TV and hear the word “fuck” and then turn it off again if I don’t like hearing that word, but that I don’t have the right to storm down to the TV company and break shit in a huff.

suiyuan: Maybe you don’t need someone doing something like this to demonstrate freedom of speech. I don’t either. Maybe some people do. Regardless, that’s not the point. There are lots of rights that we have that we don’t need per se. Someone had the right to make several seasons of that shitty TV series, Friends, regardless of the fact that I think it was shit and may have been offended by it (its incredible crapiness) on some level. I personally find it offensive that some idiots really do think that some dude built a big boat and rounded up two of everything. They still have the right to believe and speak about that though, just as I have the right to say it’s a load of bollocks. That’s the whole point of living in a free society.

Tigerman: You mean Ayaan Hirsi Ali ([wikipedia]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayaan_Hirsi_Ali[/wikipedia]). She was born in Somalia, and is now a Dutch citizen, but lives in the United States.

I didn’t expect you to get that. :laughing:

MT made a statement re jurisdiction:

[quote=“MT”]True, he didn’t violate any US laws. True, what he did should remain to be legally protected in the US. But he had actual knowledge before burning the Koran that it was very likely to cause mass outrage in other parts of the world…[/quote][/quote]You misunderstand my :laughing: and “huh?”.

I find it funny that you would equate the attitudes in Sg toward weed with burning the Koran. You obviously don’t understand Sg culture.

Edit: I understand that trying to make me appear ignorant of jurisdiction might, in some ways, deflect from what is a rather silly hypothetical. I won’t take offense. But I am curious as to whether or not MT would agree that he was making an argument re jurisdiction. I didn’t read it that way, but he is here and can correct me if I’m wrong.

Sigh… Not everyone in Afghanistan is ready to kill in response to blasphemy. Not everyone in Singapore thinks burning a joint should be a crime.

But, get this… some people in Afghanistan do think that burning a Koran is a crime, and some people in Singapore do believe that burning some weed is a crime. What part of this don’t you get?

Anyway, that wasn’t the point. The point was jurisdictional. :unamused:

[quote=“GuyInTaiwan”]Jaboney: You’re kidding, right? What do you think of any political activist or comedian? They do what they do knowing it’s probably going to offend people. That’s the whole point. That’s the whole point of us being grown ups, that I can turn on the TV and hear the word “fuck” and then turn it off again if I don’t like hearing that word, but that I don’t have the right to storm down to the TV company and break shit in a huff.[/quote]No, not kidding. You’re ignoring context.

[quote=“Tigerman”]But, get this… some people in Afghanistan do think that burning a Koran is a crime, and some people in Singapore do believe that burning some weed is a crime. What part of this don’t you get?[/quote]The part where any of this has anything to do with the topic.

Ok, then if there is some jurisdictional point to be made about this case, I would love to hear it. Honestly.

Jaboney: No, I’m not ignoring context. This guy is making a point, as lame as many people consider it to be. He’s not just drawing a penis on a desk and looking for a cheap laugh. It’s just that people either don’t agree with his point or they think it’s kind of a juvenile way of making that point. I also think it’s a juvenile way of making that point, but that’s irrelevant. What do you think the entire Reformation was if not people pissing each other off to be allowed to make their point without fear of other people going apeshit about it? This is precisely why until, and unless, Islam goes through its own Reformation (if that’s even possible), we’re still going to be watching reruns of the 16th and 17th centuries all over again. We closed this chapter in the West already. Yet it’s like we’re all at university now and the professor wants us to get out the finger paints and do that lesson all over again. My (European) ancestors didn’t thrash this shit out for centuries and lay waste to half of Central Europe (not to mention Ireland and a few other places) only for these tards to drag us right back there.

In case anyone is yet to reach it, the Formal Operations stage of Piaget’s theory of cognitive development:

[wikipedia]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piaget’s_theory_of_cognitive_development#Formal_operational_stage[/wikipedia]

Point of clarification: if you’ve read Luther or Calvin, you ought to know that both were horrified by the idea of a secular society, and it didn’t take long for the community in Geneva to break out the burning stake. The result – an emergent phenomenon – was not the intended endpoint: not ‘what it was all about’.

Context matters: the whole point of being ‘grown ups’ is not that you’re now free to offend. One part is being sufficiently mature that you won’t physically lash out at gadflies, heretics, assholes, trolls, sociopaths and idiots. Another part is knowing what constitutes the acceptable limits of provocation. Society carves out areas in which you’re free to violate those norms–comedy’s one, theatre and art others–but if you insist on behaving contrary to those norms, you can expect that someone’s going to decide you’ve forfeited any right to the protections they typically extend. The consequences will vary: a foul mouthed bastard might be tossed from restaurant, a racist might be shunned, someone who attempts to mount his host’s wife on the dinner table after dessert might lose something precious. None of those things is illegal, in the US, so there will be no legal sanctions, and your freedom to pursue each may well be protected, but none are welcome, responsible acts. None are a good idea. Jones’ deliberately provocative acts are like that… same ilk as the Phelps’ clan. Same dynamics.

Well, until just as long as it took for the Reformers to find themselves in positions of power. Then it was rinse and repeat what the Catholics had done.

Fortigurn: Which is why I wrote that it took my ancestors centuries.

Jaboney: Absolute nonsense. The man bought a book. He burnt it. That’s right, he burnt some pieces of paper with ink on them. Big fucking deal. That in no way justifies anyone killing anyone else and he is in no way responsible for that. There’s plenty that pisses plenty of people off, but we restrict ourselves. Throwing someone out of a restaurant is not in the same league as killing another person. As I wrote, these idiots don’t need a reason, they want an excuse. They’re a rent-a-mob of neanderthals masquerading as a world view. If we were talking about some white supremacists, the Christian right or any of a whole lot of other groups instead of Muslims on the other side of the world, everyone would think they were fair game for having the piss taken out of them and being riled up. We can all take the piss out of Kim Jong Il in Team America: World Police or Christianity in The Meaning of Life, but the moment anyone draws a picture of Mohammed, all fucking hell breaks loose. Every fucking time and we pussy foot around them. Fuck these clowns. Seriously, fuck them.