Burn a Quran day

tsig said:
Who cares what extremists do. You've already told us they don't represent Islam .
Click to expand...
So the question remains - what is being opposed by a Quran being burned?

If you are right that nobody cares what the extremists do then they are not opposing the extremists.

Is burning a Quran supposed to send a message to the moderates?
 
Towlie said:
Yes, it is nice. Let me teach it to you:

Standard #1: Ridiculing a statement made by your opponent that you consider to be ridiculous is perfectly acceptable.

Standard #2: Personally attacking your opponent, such as questioning his ability to learn, is called an ad hominemWP attack and is considered an argumentative fallacy. It is also forbidden on many Internet forums.
Click to expand...
I think you will find that appeal to riducule is also considered an argumentative fallacy. When the statement you are attempting to ridicule turns out to be true, then the riducule tends to boomerang.

And also straw man, come to that since I did not say that Muslims regard Jesus as God.

Long story short, if you want a polite response, make a polite post.

So tell me - do you still maintain that Muslims do not regard the Gospel as a revelation from God?
 
tsig said:
The idea that fear of violence can suppress free speech.
Click to expand...
I am not sure that the intention of Jihadi violence is to suppress free speech.

That would only be the case if those propogating violence did not want any Quran's to be burned.

I question that - I think that they are hoping and praying that Quran's be burned left right and centre.
 
Robin said:
I am not sure that the intention of Jihadi violence is to suppress free speech.

That would only be the case if those propogating violence did not want any Quran's to be burned.

I question that - I think that they are hoping and praying that Quran's be burned left right and centre.
Click to expand...

Why do you care what the extremists motives are and why do you say that others should allow their actions to be determined by the reactions and motivations of extremists?
 
There was a burning but, unfortunately, it was neither a koran or bible...

420burn-420x0.jpg

Burning the burner -- Afghans barbecue a Terry doll.
 
tsig said:
Why do you care what the extremists motives are and why do you say that others should allow their actions to be determined by the reactions and motivations of extremists?
Click to expand...
Possibly the same reason that when a chess opponent leaves their bishop as a target for my queen I have to wonder why.

But you appear to be dancing around the point in any case.

You say that your message is that fear of violence cannot suppress free speech.

That implies that someone, somewhere thinks that fear of violence ought to suppress free speech.

Just who is it who believes this, if not the people doing the violence?
 
Robin said:
Possibly the same reason that when a chess opponent leaves their bishop as a target for my queen I have to wonder why.

But you appear to be dancing around the point in any case.

You say that your message is that fear of violence cannot suppress free speech.

That implies that someone, somewhere thinks that fear of violence ought to suppress free speech.

Just who is it who believes this, if not the people doing the violence?
Click to expand...

You seem to be one.
 
Last edited:
tsig said:
You seem to be one.
Click to expand...
Are you serious? You are basing support for burning of Qurans on a straw man version of my position? Something I have not said or even remotely implied?

Is there any reason you need to be this evasive?

It seems to be a fairly simple question. You must have had in mind that someone thought that violence can suppress free speech and to whom you were sending a message.

If you really can't think of someone then your message is pointless.
 
Last edited:
It is really the stupidest reason given by the American administration - that burning a Qu'ran would result in more American deaths. That should never ever be of any consideration.

This doesn't mean that I think the Qu'ran should be burnt. The intention behind the proposed action is immature and childish, but to suggest that the right to freedom of expression should be curtailed because of alleged acts of violence from extremist groups is laughable.
 
tsig said:
Who cares what extremists do. You've already told us they don't represent Islam .
Click to expand...

All Muslims - or at least a very large proportion of them - will be upset at the burning of a Koran. Upsetting Muslims is the point - just as upsetting Catholics was what Myers was trying to do.

The justification for upsetting an entire group like that is that a minority of them will overreact.
 
Dipayan said:
It is really the stupidest reason given by the American administration - that burning a Qu'ran would result in more American deaths. That should never ever be of any consideration.

This doesn't mean that I think the Qu'ran should be burnt. The intention behind the proposed action is immature and childish, but to suggest that the right to freedom of expression should be curtailed because of alleged acts of violence from extremist groups is laughable.
Click to expand...

The right to freedom of expression should not be curtailed, is not being curtailed, and in fact, cannot legally be curtailed. However, when somebody is about to do something stupid, offensive and dangerous, it would be absurd not to point it out to him in the strongest possible terms.
 
Robin said:
Are you serious? You are basing support for burning of Qurans on a straw man version of my position? Something I have not said or even remotely implied?

Is there any reason you need to be this evasive?

It seems to be a fairly simple question. You must have had in mind that someone thought that violence can suppress free speech and to whom you were sending a message.

If you really can't think of someone then your message is pointless.
Click to expand...

There seems to be a strange kind of view that free speech means that when you say something, nobody can answer back. Clearly that's not only wrong, but contradictory. Free speech implies that we have the right to tell a fool causing trouble what the consequences of his action will be.
 
tsig said:
The idea that fear of violence can suppress free speech.
Click to expand...

That's exactly why it's such a stupid idea. When he decides not to burn the Koran, it's seen as giving in to violence. The terrorists win.

Of course, if he does burn it, it's a massive recruitment boost for Al Quaeda and the Taliban. So the terrorists win either way.
 
westprog said:
All Muslims - or at least a very large proportion of them - will be upset at the burning of a Koran. Upsetting Muslims is the point
Click to expand...

Or maybe he wanted to burn the koran because he sees it as an evil book that caused, amongst other atrocities, the destruction of the twin towers and its nearly 300 occupants.
The upsetting of muslims would then be a side effect, rather than the point, of the exercise.

...just as upsetting Catholics was what Myers was trying to do.
Click to expand...
Maybe the point was to demonstrate his support for free speech against those who would use their religion to curtail it.
Maybe he did want to upset them just as they upset him by curtailing his free speech.

The justification for upsetting an entire group like that is that a minority of them will overreact.
Click to expand...
Maybe if everyday someone somewhere would burn a bible and a koran, the overreaction would have to stop for their being too many targets. Maybe eventually the message would get across: Get over it guys, we are talking about a book here. It can't be worth killing for. Please understand that different people have different views and that the name of the game is tolerance.
 
westprog said:
Why would I condemn a lot of different things equally?

The point about the burning of the Koran is that it served no purpose aside from deliberately antagonising Muslims, in order to provoke some kind of reaction. ....
Click to expand...

That EXACT statement could be made about the Motoons (especially the reprinting) which it seems the majority of secularists supported.

This is really the point that is bugging me. That so many atheists, secularists and 'free speech' advocates have jumped ship on this one.
 
Last edited:
jayh said:
That EXACT statement could be made about the Motoons (especially the reprinting) which it seems the majority of secularists supported.

This is really the point that is bugging me. That so many atheists, secularists and 'free speech' advocates have jumped ship on this one.
Click to expand...

I suspect it has something to do with the antagonist this time being a fundamentalist Christian, which makes his right to free expression somehow not worth supporting as fervently.
 
If people really wanted to make a point about intimidation and free speech then what about supporting those people that really put their lives on the line (and sometimes lose them) for free speech?

What about a "Read Ayaan Hirsi Ali Day" or a "Read the Satanic Verses Day", or a "Watch 'Submission' Day"?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom