Burn a Quran day

[tsig]

Since when does someone have the right to make a rule such as 'burning a certain book is bad' and then declare that you have done something bad and hurtful?

Why should it be my fault if someone decided to base their feelings on something as silly as a book?

What if I decided it is hurtful and offensive for someone to be offended by the burning of a book? Therefore the only reason someone could be offended by burning a book is to offend me and therefore they are a hurtful person.

I am sorry, but I have absolutely no sympathy for anyone claiming to have their feelings hurt because of a burned book that is in wide circulation and print. And I don't care what the book is about. If someone's feelings are hurt by a book being burned then I believe that person deserves to have their feelings hurt until they grow up.

Here's how this works.

You burn a book and someone else kills someone because you burnt a book and it's all your fault.


ETA: Those who make posts disagreeing with me are offensive to me and to prove it I've got this cat in my lap and if anyone chooses to argue with me the cat gets it.

 

[bokonon]

Those who make posts disagreeing with me are offensive to me and to prove it I've got this cat in my lap and if anyone chooses to argue with me the cat gets it.

If you don't buy this magazine argument, we I'll shoot this dog cat.

 

[BillyJoe]

How exactly is burning Qurans going to do this? By what mechanism do you think that this would work?

I didn't say that is the only thing that could be done. In fact, it is one of many things that can be done to break down the intolerance. They all need to be done, often and everywhere.

To the Muslims who would agree with you, burning a Quran is a hurtful message of intolerance.

How exactly are they agreeing with me then?

To the Muslims who embrace violence it is a godsend that drives a wedge between moderate Muslims and the rest of the community.

That's why it has to be done often and everywhere. Too many targets. And eventually the message gets across that this is not one person objecting to their intolerance of others' points of view.

If you want to send a message about intimidation and free speech then there are much better ways of doing it, as I have already pointed out.

There are many ways.
Ways that work, and ways that don't (or not very well).
Do you think gay rights was won by diplomatic means alone. Do you really think that there would be gay rights now if there weren't gay right activists who demanded equal rights instead of just people asking please.

So, where exactly is the upside?

Something might actually change.

 

[Emperor_Gestahl]

Of course he's allowed to burn any book he wants, is anyone actually debating against that? He can do it, it's just foolhardy because it will likely aid the real terrorists instead of hurting them.

 

[Skeptic]

You are assuming that religion is logical.
That is a bad assumption.
I am deadly certain they would be able to rationalise such an act.

Very easily. They kill more Muslims than non-Muslims, by quite a margin. Those were apostate bad Muslims in that building, you see.

 

[Dipayan]

There seems to be consensus that the extremists are wrong to react by killing and rioting. However, it's also true that there is nothing that can be done about it, short term.

Sure there is. If it's Muslim extremists you are trying to appease, you can convert to Islam and follow their example.

So given the choice of options, when deciding what to do, should we take the option which results in the death of innocent people, or the one that doesn't?

I don't know, you tell me. When a plane is hijacked, does the US negotiate with terrorists? Because that is about direct fatal consequences. As opposed to some politically created group situations.

What cause some confusion is that the cause and effect isn't very clear, and in any case, it will happen to some person who lives a long way off and is probably very different to us. .

I think the mistake you are making here is in believing that an extremist will not hurt others as long as a Koran isn't burnt. The point of extremism is to react extremely. So for example, an American burnt the Koran, 2 Afghans died in a riot. Does that make sense? Of course not. Because it was not about the Koran burning. So the question is, do you really want everyone to go through their lives mindful of not stepping on the toes of some fundamentalist groups who are just looking for any little excuse to erupt violently?

But put some gunman in the next room with the gun to the head of a child, and most people will go along with even quite unreasonable demands. We certainly wouldn't try to find out the one thing that would upset him most and do it.

And what if the gunman had killed children in the past, and you knew that it wasn't about the unreasonable demands that was being made - even if every demand was met, the gunman would still find something to shoot the boy over?

 

[Dipayan]

Since when does someone have the right to make a rule such as 'burning a certain book is bad' and then declare that you have done something bad and hurtful?

Why should it be my fault if someone decided to base their feelings on something as silly as a book?

What if I decided it is hurtful and offensive for someone to be offended by the burning of a book? Therefore the only reason someone could be offended by burning a book is to offend me and therefore they are a hurtful person.

I am sorry, but I have absolutely no sympathy for anyone claiming to have their feelings hurt because of a burned book that is in wide circulation and print. And I don't care what the book is about. If someone's feelings are hurt by a book being burned then I believe that person deserves to have their feelings hurt until they grow up.

This.

 

[westprog]

Since when does someone have the right to make a rule such as 'burning a certain book is bad' and then declare that you have done something bad and hurtful?

Why should it be my fault if someone decided to base their feelings on something as silly as a book?

What if I decided it is hurtful and offensive for someone to be offended by the burning of a book? Therefore the only reason someone could be offended by burning a book is to offend me and therefore they are a hurtful person.

I am sorry, but I have absolutely no sympathy for anyone claiming to have their feelings hurt because of a burned book that is in wide circulation and print. And I don't care what the book is about. If someone's feelings are hurt by a book being burned then I believe that person deserves to have their feelings hurt until they grow up.

That's a perfect summary of the "They're wrong, we're right" attitude. They "deserve to have their feelings hurt". I wonder how this works with parents. "There's nothing special about that teddy bear." Meanwhile...

At least 1 killed, several hurt during protest against U.S. Quran burning in Kabul, Afghanistan, security sources tell NBC News

But the good news is that it's almost certainly nobody we know...

 

[BillyJoe]

That's a perfect summary of the "They're wrong, we're right" attitude. They "deserve to have their feelings hurt".

You have lost sight of what this is all about:
This is about intolerance.

There are muslims who won't tolerate disagreement with their point of view under pain of death. Death to the infidel. Death to the apostate. The koran is the source of this intolerance. Therefore, in defense of free speech, in defense of freedom to put a different point of view than that allowed by the koran, the koran is burnt.

To hijack another saying:
The only thing we should be intolerant of is intolerance itself.

I wonder how this works with parents. "There's nothing special about that teddy bear." Meanwhile...

Another huge analogy fail.
They're not wresting korans from the cluthes of muslims and burning them, they're burning their own korans as a symbolic protest against intolerance.

 

[westprog]

You have lost sight of what this is all about:
This is about intolerance.

There are muslims who won't tolerate disagreement with their point of view under pain of death. Death to the infidel. Death to the apostate. The koran is the source of this intolerance. Therefore, in defense of free speech, in defense of freedom to put a different point of view than that allowed by the koran, the koran is burnt.

To hijack another saying:
The only thing we should be intolerant of is intolerance itself.

Another huge analogy fail.
They're not wresting korans from the cluthes of muslims and burning them, they're burning their own korans as a symbolic protest against intolerance.

I can just imagine the scene.

Billyjoe is sitting with his friends brooding about intolerance. "Intolerance sickens me" he says. "We should do something about it." There's a pause. Someone speaks up. "I know! To demonstrate our tolerance, let's burn a Koran!"

Instant applause. The guys jump in the pickup and head to the local bookshop. They buy all the korans they have. (Two). Then they walk over to the local convenience store and start a small fire on the sidewalk. The owner comes out.

"What are you doing, please" he asks. "We're burning a koran, in a protest against intolerance, and for free speech". The shop owner turns pale. "I have lived in this country for ten years, I work hard, I am a good citizen. Why are you persecuting me?"

BillyJoe shakes his head. "If you think you're being persecuted, that's because you're confused. This is our Koran we're burning. We're not taking your Koran away from you. But since the Koran produces intolerance, we think it should be burned."

The owners wife peeks out. "And stop making your wife wear a headscarf." She runs inside crying. The owner calls out to a passing policeman. "Please - can you stop this? They are burning the holy book - the words of God - right here in front of me."

The cop shakes his head. "I'm sorry, sir. This is considered an exercise in free speech. There's nothing I can do."

The book is by now totally consumed. The guys climb back into the pickup truck. "And this wasn't a racial thing, by the way" they call out as they drive off.

And tolerance is thus advanced.

 

[Belz...]

Burning a flag, the symbol of the American government, is an action that is covered by free speech. Burning a koran has nothing whatsoever to do with burning a symbol of the country.

??? So those two actions are entirely different in form and spirit and aren't analogous in any way ?

Odd.

 

[westprog]

Here's how this works.

You burn a book and someone else kills someone because you burnt a book and it's all your fault.

Which is a paraphrase of who? Since nobody I've read has said anything like that.

All the people who've said that burning the book was a stupid, bigoted act have made it clear that the extremists who carry out violent acts should be held responsible for them. Nobody has said that it's all the fault of the book burners.

ETA: Those who make posts disagreeing with me are offensive to me and to prove it I've got this cat in my lap and if anyone chooses to argue with me the cat gets it.

If I really thought that someone on JREF would commit a violent act if I argued with him, I'd put him on ignore without a second thought.

 

[Belz...]

It's been nice talking to you but it's time to go on ignore. Had you answered a question this wouldn't have happened.

So... the actual answers given don't qualify ?

 

[westprog]

So... the actual answers given don't qualify ?

Well, if you will persist in disagreeing with him...

 

[BillyJoe]

westprog,

I don't know what you think your trying to achieve by mischaracterising people's views with your silly little stories.
I suppose it excuses you from having to actually address the argument.

Oh well...

Anyway, whilst we're into story telling, try this one for size:
(at least it's actually funny)

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/so...it-atheists-to-the-flames-20100914-15atz.html

regards,
BillyJoe

 

[Robin]

The upside is feeling good about supporting free speech while someone a long way off suffers the consequences. Win-win!

Sort of "I may not agree with what I do but I am willing to fight to someone else's death for my right to do it".

 

[Robin]

Since when does someone have the right to make a rule such as 'burning a certain book is bad' and then declare that you have done something bad and hurtful?

Why should it be my fault if someone decided to base their feelings on something as silly as a book?

What if I decided it is hurtful and offensive for someone to be offended by the burning of a book? Therefore the only reason someone could be offended by burning a book is to offend me and therefore they are a hurtful person.

I am sorry, but I have absolutely no sympathy for anyone claiming to have their feelings hurt because of a burned book that is in wide circulation and print. And I don't care what the book is about. If someone's feelings are hurt by a book being burned then I believe that person deserves to have their feelings hurt until they grow up.

Why is it your right to decide that they ought not to invest so much emotion in a book?

It is not your fault that they invest so much emotion in a book - but if you know that something causes distress to someone and they have never done anything bad to you, then why would you go ahead and cause them distress?

 

[FireGarden]

Anyway, whilst we're into story telling, try this one for size:
(at least it's actually funny)

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/so...it-atheists-to-the-flames-20100914-15atz.html

regards,
BillyJoe

That analogy fails since the God Delusion is no way precious to atheists. In fact, I struggle to think of a book which is.

I do think that if enough books were burnt by enough people, then there would be many -- atheists included -- who would protest. Not for the loss of the books. But for the message the book burning sends.

Suppose burning the God Delusion was defended as a good idea by people in authority. Suppose Obama was asked about it and he merely shrugged his shoulders. What then? You wouldn't feel persecuted in the slightest? I would feel that atheists are disliked and that the dislike of atheists is not seen as a problem by those in authority.

Burning the books is not intended as a means to remove the book from those who want to read it. It sends a message about the value of the books and what is thought of the people who think it is a good book.

Burning the Quran is as insulting as calling a black man a ******.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Why is it your right to decide that they ought not to invest so much emotion in a book?

Never said it was.

It is not your fault that they invest so much emotion in a book - but if you know that something causes distress to someone and they have never done anything bad to you, then why would you go ahead and cause them distress?

I don't need to answer to them for anything I do. Do they need to give me a reason for their being distressed at what I do in order to validate being distressed? Why is there an assumption that anything I do is because of their feelings?

If they know being distressed causes me to be distressed and I have done nothing to them, why would they go ahead and be distressed? See how this works? It can work both ways. Which is why it's a bogus argument. It's an attempt to simply use guilt to force people to adhere to ones own beliefs.

And this I think anyone who uses such cheap tactics deserves to be distressed until they can learn to grow up and act like an adult.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

That's a perfect summary of the "They're wrong, we're right" attitude. They "deserve to have their feelings hurt". I wonder how this works with parents. "There's nothing special about that teddy bear." Meanwhile...

Exactly. Behavior that is to be expected from a child. Not adults.