Didn’t think it needed to be specified. But, of course by “fucking Muslims” I refer only to those Muslims who can’t take a joke. You know, the ones who scream bloody murder if you make fun of Mohammed or burn a Koran. Why would I care about Muslims who don’t care what I do or say, so long as it doesn’t directly or reasonable cause them harm?[/quote]
I don’t know how you call burning the book of a religion a “joke”. A joke is more like, “Three dudes walk into a bar…” or “Knock knock…” It’s no more a joke than burning a flag, bible, or otherwise doing something that insults people. It may or may not be protected speech, but I think calling it a joke, as if it’s some lighthearted thing used to get a chuckle, is way off base. Plus, this guy is arguing that they are the devil, evil, etc…and then burning the book…real funny joke :loco:
[quote=“Chris”]Are bees responsible for your stings if you poke their hive with a stick?
The pastor’s actions are deliberately designed to piss off Muslims.[/quote]
Oh, for fucks sake… Bad analogy.
I guess you then do not hold responsible the people who murder doctors who perform abortions? I mean, clearly performing abortions provokes certain people. So, I guess those doctors are responsible for their own deaths?
[quote=“Gman”]
The focus of this thread really is about the reaction of Muslims outside the US. I think the uproar and bigotry surrounding the so called 911 Mosque is a far more worrying issue to Muslims in the US or at least it should be. Let’s agree to disagree on this shall we? I think we both agree that the burning is a pretty stupid thing to do regardless.
.[/quote]
edit: “Where they burn books, they will ultimately also burn people.” —Heinrich Heine.
[quote=“Mother Theresa”]That’s not what they taught in torts class, is it?
bermansimmons.com/article_detail.php?id=32[/quote]
I’d argue that the damage must be physical and must be reasonable. Also, I wouldn’t catagorize the free expression of speech as a negligent act.
Give me strength. I don’t mean joke in the literal sense.
That’s not what they taught in torts class, is it?
bermansimmons.com/article_detail.php?id=32[/quote]
I don’t get it. This is a situation dealing with international politics rather than a legal issue right? Are you saying that this minister could be held accountable if some member of the Taliban shoots a US soldier and claims it was an act of revenge for the book burning?
So if an abortion clinic opens a branch in a very conservative Christian part of some town in Georgia and some wacko guns down a Doctor sighting this clinic performing abortions in that area the clinic could be held partially responsible?
I agree. Just as Christians have to get used to the idea that not everyone shares their beliefs and that (gasp!) they can even be mocked, so must Muslims. It doesn’t mean they have to like it, but to not recognize and respect the diversity of thought and belief INCLUDING sarcasm, satire, parody, and derision, is to live with blinders on.
I agree. Just as Christians have to get used to the idea that not everyone shares their beliefs and that (gasp!) they can even be mocked, so must Muslims. It doesn’t mean they have to like it, but to not recognize and respect the diversity of thought and belief INCLUDING sarcasm, satire, parody, and derision, is to live with blinders on.[/quote]
What I’m getting from that statement is that Muslims must in some way accept behavior that crosses their boundaries, just as we’re saying that we (general) won’t tolerate, what we see as, their lack of humor, or oversensitivity to criticism/sarcasm/satire. Where does the respect begin? And with whom? How are they suppose to respect this so-called diversity of thought and beliefs when for them it’s mocking, ridiculing and dismissive of their beliefs? That’s like saying I should enjoy an Al Jolson performance in this day and age, because surely, the white person who is doing it, isn’t racist but just doing it purely for entertainment purposes.
Give me strength. I don’t mean joke in the literal sense.[/quote]
Sorry, doesn’t make sense to me figuratively either…
I think you make a good point, as have others with their points on abortion doctors, etc. Who says people don’t change their minds on these forums? I still can’t quite get over the fact that he has acknowledged, as a real concern, the fact that people could get killed over his little stunt. I think he could at least face a lawsuit if someone gets killed, but that is all for the courts to decide. (and since I read he can’t even afford to pay the mortgage on his church, probably doesn’t matter…)
On the other hand, I think I have forgotten the lesson I learned from Chomsky’s “Manufacturing Consent,” which Gman reminded me of. I think this type of discussion is important on some level, but it can also make us forget that some dipshit burning a book is small compared to occupying a country. It’s small compared to forcing freedom of elections and then labeling the party elected as a terrorist organization (Hamas) and not even attempting to be diplomatic.
Every little thing we do in the Muslim world does not piss them off because they are all crazy (though some are, for sure), but it’s because of all of the big things we have been doing there for the past 50 years.
We all have a right to be offended. We even have a right to act on the offense. If I were offended by Piss Christ, I might act by not patronizing the exhibit, writing letters to the editor, or even advocating a cessation of funding to the arts. However, I would not be entitled to act in a violent manner. The only thing intolerable is intolerance.
We all have a responsibility to be respectful of others opinions. Again, by respect, I do not mean agree with or even consider intelligent or thoughtful. I simply mean that we have a responsibility to remember that sticks and stones may break my bones, but, names will never hurt me.
They can start by looking in the mirror and asking why it is that they don’t respect others’ beliefs.
Sticks and stones. Words. Use each only when appropriate.
Oh, heck. I’m no bigot and you know it. I just think that my freedom of speech trumps some asshole’s right to go ballistic because he doesn’t like what I say. [/quote]Of course I know it. And I know that sometimes the meaning of our words are twisted. (See above posts. ha!) I think that’s reason for care.
Unintended consequences? Like what? Do you really think the nutball pastor is to blame if some crazy Muslim fanatic decides to kill more US troops or civilians somewhere because he is enraged by the burning of a few books? And why should we tiptoe around unreasonable sensitivities? Where do we draw a line? Some of those assholes are offended to the point of bloody murder when a woman asserts her individuality. Really, fuck 'em if they can’t take a joke.[/quote]I think words matter and public speech sometimes has grave consequences. Isn’t that why you’re so committed to its protection: because it’s meaningful and deeply important?
You’re more deeply committed to unfettered free speech than I. If I were to begin flaming posts simply to be provocative, your response wouldn’t be pleasant; you wouldn’t take it as an insignificant joke. If posters were to take your words the wrong way, you’d get annoyed; maybe deeply so. If they deliberately misrepresented your words in ways offensive to you, the ‘joke’ would get real old, real fast.
I certainly don’t think we should tiptoe around unreasonable sensitivities. Nor do I think we should needlessly trample on others’ dearly held convictions. I don’t think it’s all that difficult to try and hold those things in balance, even if we’re unlikely to get it right consistently.
(I think posing the problem to ourselves in certain ways makes it more or less likely that we’ll get it right. Which is why I prefer Elizabeth’s formulation to Jerry’s, even though Jerry’s is more available and comes to mind more readily.)
[quote]The only thing intolerable is intolerance.[/quote]Insufficient. What if it’s just a joke?
This guy with the matches, he’s displaying intolerance. But we tolerate his intolerance because why? What’s the missing qualifier on your statement? So long as no one gets hurt, directly?
[quote]We all have a right to be offended. We even have a right to act on the offense. If I were offended by Piss Christ, I might act by not patronizing the exhibit, writing letters to the editor, or even advocating a cessation of funding to the arts. However, I would not be entitled to act in a violent manner. The only thing intolerable is intolerance.[/quote] Where is this “right” at? Did I miss something in 8th grade civics class?!?!?!?
[quote]We all have a responsibility to be respectful of others opinions. Again, by respect, I do not mean agree with or even consider intelligent or thoughtful. I simply mean that we have a responsibility to remember that sticks and stones may break my bones, but, names will never hurt me.[/quote]Lord have mercy, we’re using grammar school rhymes to support our ADULT actions?
They can start by looking in the mirror and asking why it is that they don’t respect others’ beliefs.[/quote] Same goes for “us”. It’s got to start somewhere. But this sounds more like Manifest Destiny reasoning.
Sure. But, just because some people are bent out of shape by words does not give them the right to act violently as a result of being offended. There should not be "grave consequences’ as a result of mere words or expression. You are in for all sorts of crap if that’s the standard we’re going to use. Hey, buddy, watch out, man. Don’t say that. There could be grave consequences!
Its not all meaningful or deeply important. I’m committed to free expression of political and or religious speech. I’d much rather live in a world (or nation) where I am free to make statements without having to worry that some asshole who doesn’t like what I say is allowed to or expected to bring down grave consequences on me. Fuck that! You don’t like what i say? Don’t listen, or respond with your own words. Leave the gun at home.
Political and religious speech. I’m not committed to just any type of speech.
If you were to do that here, you would be guilty, IMO, of censorship. The nutball pastor planning to burn books is not censoring Muslims. He’s not denying them the right to read their Korans.
I might get annoyed, even deeply so. But, i wouldn’t look for that mother to do violence to him.
I agree. But, again, my right to speak words that offend you trumps your right to react in violence at your offence.
I think Jerry’s statement is right to the point. We all hold different convictions and we all offend someone else sometime. We should not have to worry that our words might offend someone such that we need to fear violence against us.
Precisely. I think I’ve said the same in several other of my posts.
1st Amendment.
Makes sense to me. Why should I be entitled to react with violence against you if you say something that offends me? Swing a stick at me, however, and I’ll likely swing one back.
Same does go for us. But, as far as I know, Mosques and Korans are permitted in the United States. Bibles and churches and synagogs are not permitted or not well tolerated in many Muslim nations.
We should not have to worry that our possessing more property might prompt someone to act violently against us too. And yet we take precautions and care; it’s more than prudent. Again, tiptoes ain’t the way forward; but neither is neither is tramping about.
Insufficient. This guy with the matches, he’s displaying intolerance. But we tolerate his intolerance because why? What’s the missing qualifier on your statement? So long as no one gets hurt, directly?[/quote]Precisely. I think I’ve said the same in several other of my posts.[/quote]And if the political or religious speech is intended to lead to violence? Would you censor that, even though the words themselves are only words?
Didn’t think it needed to be specified. But, of course by “fucking Muslims” I refer only to those Muslims who can’t take a joke. You know, the ones who scream bloody murder if you make fun of Mohammed or burn a Koran. Why would I care about Muslims who don’t care what I do or say, so long as it doesn’t cause direct and reasonable harm?[/quote]
I and probably most people on this forum don’t know you personally and are not familiar with your history of posting. All you had to do was qualify the remark as “the fucking terrorist Muslims” or whatever, just sayin “the fucking Muslims” implies all Muslims. If someone like SJ came back on under an alias username and starting ranting about “the fucking gays”, I wouldn’t be the only one getting bent out of shape, and he’d probably get himself zapped again.
As for your point, I despise most religions as much as the next atheist, and I agree that Afghani Muslims oughtta see the book burning as the hate-filled stupidity that it is, but it’s hardly a joke, just like I wouldn’t take a bunch of radical Iranians burning the US Constitution or the US flag as a “joke”, but I wouldn’t go all ballistic at their ignorant asses either.
Property rights are protected by law. So is the right to free speech.
Why should I believe that the burning of a few Korans in Florida by a nutcase pastor is intended to lead to violence somewhere in the middle east (or anywhere)? Its not near the same level as speech calling for death of someone for sayong something I don’t like. There has to be some reason applied. No?
Again, I though it was evident from the context. But, you’re right,. I should be more careful.
I actually wouldn’t ban him for such a remark. I don’t have anything against gay folks, and I am in favor of gay marriage. But, I don’t think people should be banned for making unpopular statements. I’d rather see people who disagree call him out with words. I don’t think disliking a particular class of people is bigotry. Bigotry is, IMO, literally not tolerating a particular class of people. If SJ or anyone else acted violently in a way against a particular class of people, I would object to the action.
Well, that’s what I think, too. Say what you like. Don’t expect me to always agree with you. But, you needn’t fear that I’m going to come looking for you to do you violence because I am offended by your words.
At what point do we determine that political or religious speech is intended to lead to violence? Sure, there are lots examples of you can give where it’s pretty obvious but how far to you take this. If someone commits an act of violence because they are stupid enough to blindly follow some degenerate they are solely responsible for that act. If you want to get to the point where we start assigning secondary responsibility to parties we deem contributing parties, how about making car companies and the marketing firm that produce television adds of their cars taking hair pin turns at high speed responsible for car crashes?
Personally I’m all for unfettered free speech just for the sake of erring on the side of caution. In a society that can bend, twist and reinterpret what constitutes torture I don’t think I want something as important as freedom of expression open to interpretation.