Burn a Quran day

[Jonnyclueless]

And tolerance is thus advanced.

And why does it have to be about tolerance?

Suppose I enjoy lighting my farts and using a burning Koran produces just the right resonance? And thus robust burning farts is advanced.

How about if I have a religion that tells you what you can't do and I can then use to claim you are hurting me and disrespecting my god? What if my religion says that you posting on this forum is an abomination to my god? And therefore the only reason you have to post is to be hurtful and disrespectful to my god? And that you're now doing it knowing you are disrespecting my god.

And thus you are furthering the advancement of tolerance...

 

[westprog]

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.

Exactly what did I mischaracterise? Did you or did you not claim that burning Korans was an aid to tolerance? All I did was point out what that means in practice.

I must admit, it was such a daft idea that I half thought it was intended satirically.

 

[westprog]

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".

Exactly. Consequences tucked away thousands of miles distant.

 

[westprog]

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?

I have the right to do this and therefore by doing it I am defending my right to do it and hence defending my rights.

 

[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.

You were supposed to laugh not analyse a joke.

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.

Except the authors who would have free publicity and increased sales.
In any case the only cause for concern is if people start burning unique books. The others can all be replaced so what could it possibly matter. In any case, the impact of book burning would quickly be lost if everyone started doing it, so the practice would gradually die out and, I suspect, everyone would be just a little more tolerant in the end.

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.

I don't know about you, but I would merely congratulate Obama for being so sensible and go about my business.

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.

That's exactly right.

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

The difference is that the koran is piece of ****

 

[BillyJoe]

Exactly what did I mischaracterise? Did you or did you not claim that burning Korans was an aid to tolerance? All I did was point out what that means in practice.

I must admit, it was such a daft idea that I half thought it was intended satirically.

Your story was a parody and a strawman.

The koran is a book of intolerance.
The only thing we should be intolerant of is intolerance itself.
Does that answer your question?

 

[Robin]

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.

That does not answer my question. I asked by what mechanism it would work.

How exactly are they agreeing with me then?

They would agree that violence should not be used to shut down free speech.

They would just not agree that burning a Quran is an intelligent way of getting this message across.

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.

The message would get through to whom exactly?

There are many ways.
Ways that work, and ways that don't (or not very well).

On that we are very much agreed.

Do you think gay rights was won by diplomatic means alone.

No, but I think it was done by effective means.

Something might actually change.

Again - by what mechanism.

Step 1 Everybody burns a Quran as often as possible
Step 2 ....
Step 3 Islamic militants get the idea that violence is not going to prevent free speech (or whatever result you think it is going to have)

What is step 2?

 

[Robin]

Never said it was.

You said they ought to have their feelings hurt until they grow up. That is a judgement that their feelings are wrong and ought to be altered. Why is it your right to decide that their feelings are wrong and ought to be altered?

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?

The assumption is that if somebody doesn't do anything bad to you then you don't do anything bad to them, unless your absolutely can't help it or there is some even more pressing reason for doing something that would hurt them.

In some countries they get upset if you hold your hand up towards them, knuckles outward with the middle finger extended upwards.

Some people might even punch you if you do it.

I think we can both agree that it is silly and irrational to become upset by the configuration of somebody's fingers.

So ought we to do this to everybody as often as possible until they grow up?

Or should we accept that if it offends them and they have not done anything to deserve being offended that we should just decide not to do it?

Is it really such a curtailment of free expression if I decide not to flip the bird at an innocent bystander?

 

[westprog]

You said they ought to have their feelings hurt until they grow up. That is a judgement that their feelings are wrong and ought to be altered. Why is it your right to decide that their feelings are wrong and ought to be altered?

The assumption is that if somebody doesn't do anything bad to you then you don't do anything bad to them, unless your absolutely can't help it or there is some even more pressing reason for doing something that would hurt them.

In some countries they get upset if you hold your hand up towards them, knuckles outward with the middle finger extended upwards.

Some people might even punch you if you do it.

I think we can both agree that it is silly and irrational to become upset by the configuration of somebody's fingers.

So ought we to do this to everybody as often as possible until they grow up?

Or should we accept that if it offends them and they have not done anything to deserve being offended that we should just decide not to do it?

Is it really such a curtailment of free expression if I decide not to flip the bird at an innocent bystander?

It's not even a matter of restricting your right to do so. It's just an acceptance that deliberately causing offence and distress to other people is not, in itself, a good thing to do. It might be that when there is a need, or a provocation, that it is necessary to offend people. There's never a right not to be offended. However, someone who deliberately upsets other people for the sake of it isn't being a provocative martyr for free speech. He's being a ****, a complete ******* and a ******* ****.

 

[westprog]

Your story was a parody and a strawman.

Of course it was a parody. That's because the idea that burning Korans promotes tolerance is so absurd that parody is the only adequate response.

The koran is a book of intolerance.
The only thing we should be intolerant of is intolerance itself.
Does that answer your question?

I've answered it myself. I've shown what this "intolerance of intolerance" means in practice.

 

[FireGarden]

You were supposed to laugh not analyse a joke.

sorry

Except the authors who would have free publicity and increased sales.
In any case the only cause for concern is if people start burning unique books.

This isn't about protecting books. Burning a Quran is a message, and the message isn't "that's one less copy that can be read!"

In any case, the impact of book burning would quickly be lost if everyone started doing it, so the practice would gradually die out and, I suspect, everyone would be just a little more tolerant in the end.

This is an unfounded assumption. Maybe the power of the n-word would diminish if every one started using it. They have the right to, after all. But you can't simply assume the offensiveness of the word will diminish.

I don't know about you, but I would merely congratulate Obama for being so sensible and go about my business.

Either you don't see the message in burning a book -- I tried to spell it out. Or you wouldn't mind a world where it was okay to hate atheists. Do you think people who burn pro-atheist texts would hire an atheist? Do you think they might boycott shops run by atheists?

That's exactly right.

So you do see the message in burning a book.

The difference is that the koran is piece of ****

The difference is that you don't mind bigotry aimed against Muslims.

 

[BillyJoe]

Again - by what mechanism.

Step 1 Everybody burns a Quran as often as possible
Step 2 ....
Step 3 Islamic militants get the idea that violence is not going to prevent free speech (or whatever result you think it is going to have)

What is step 2?

It's not going to end up with everyone burning a koran as aften as possible. When it gets beyond a certain point (enough koran burnings by enough people), the activity would begin to lose its effect and therefore lose its appeal as a good means of showing contempt for the intolerance promoted in the koran and by those for whom the koran is the holy book by which they act intolerantly towards those who have different beliefs (such as those burning the korans). The outcome, then, is a greater tolerance by muslims towards koran burning. A beginning...

In my opinion a great battle was lost when newspapers and magazines around the world decided not to post the Danish cartoons.

There are a couple of historical parallels:

In the past, blacks were thought to be inferior human beings, fit only to be slaves. Diplomacy didn't win the day. It did help, but if it were only for diplomacy, blacks would still be thought of as inferior human beings, fit only to be slaves. It took blacks who were prepared to slap their equality in the face of those who would keep them enslaved, angry and upset because their neat little lives were being destroyed by those uppity blacks.

Nothing is won by just asking please.

Same with the gay rights movement. Diplomacy was needed to get the actual laws through, but the whole thing would not have even gotten off the ground if it weren't for those who demanded equal rights. They needed to upset the cosy lives of those who would deny them a legitimacy. They needed to upset the pastors and priests. They needed to upset society. It could not have been achieved with quiet and reasonable debate alone.

Maybe you don't see a parallel.
Maybe you need to live in a muslim country where sharia is law to understand the parallel.

 

[BillyJoe]

Of course it was a parody.

It was parody filled with straw.

I've answered it myself. I've shown what this "intolerance of intolerance" means in practice.

You can't be serious.

 

[BillyJoe]

The difference is that you don't mind bigotry aimed against Muslims.

BillyJoe supports the burning of korans in protest at the intolerance promoted in that book against those with different beliefs (death to the infidel!).
FireGarden accuses him of bigotry against muslims.

 

[Robin]

It's not going to end up with everyone burning a koran as aften as possible. When it gets beyond a certain point (enough koran burnings by enough people), the activity would begin to lose its effect and therefore lose its appeal as a good means of showing contempt for the intolerance promoted in the koran and by those for whom the koran is the holy book by which they act intolerantly towards those who have different beliefs (such as those burning the korans). The outcome, then, is a greater tolerance by muslims towards koran burning. A beginning...

Seems like everyone wants to burn a Quran, but everybody has a different reason for doing it. Now it is apparently about how intolerant the Quran is.

Be that as it may, you are still not answering the question.

You are talking about step 1 and step 3, but you still have not told us how it is supposed to work.

Step 1. Burn Qurans
Step 2. ?
Step 3. Muslims start acting tolerantly towards people who like to burn Qurans

What is step 2?

What is it about burning Qurans that brings about this outcome?

.

 

[westprog]

Seems like everyone wants to burn a Quran, but everybody has a different reason for doing it. Now it is apparently about how intolerant the Quran is.

Be that as it may, you are still not answering the question.

You are talking about step 1 and step 3, but you still have not told us how it is supposed to work.

Step 1. Burn Qurans
Step 2. ?
Step 3. Muslims start acting tolerantly towards people who like to burn Qurans

What is step 2?

What is it about burning Qurans that brings about this outcome?

.

It starts with the assumption that other people are Not Like Us.

Most people, when told that their beliefs are stupid and evil, will take it as at least implying that they are themselves stupid and evil, and that the person saying this is their enemy. It's true that if you keep it up, it will be somewhat deadened by familiarity - but it will in no way lead to friendship and mutual understanding.

Let's be bigoted against bigotry! Hate those haters!

 

[tsig]

BillyJoe supports the burning of korans in protest at the intolerance promoted in that book against those with different beliefs (death to the infidel!).
FireGarden accuses him of bigotry against muslims.

That seems to be their last ditch defense. When all other arguments fail throw the bigotry bomb.

 

[tsig]

It starts with the assumption that other people are Not Like Us.

Most people, when told that their beliefs are stupid and evil, will take it as at least implying that they are themselves stupid and evil, and that the person saying this is their enemy. It's true that if you keep it up, it will be somewhat deadened by familiarity - but it will in no way lead to friendship and mutual understanding.

Let's be bigoted against bigotry! Hate those haters!

I guess accusing others of bigotry is your way of achieving peace and understanding.

 

[westprog]

Ode To BillyJoe

I guess accusing others of bigotry is your way of achieving peace and understanding.

That was what is technically known as a "joke". No, the best way to achieve peace and understanding is to tell people that their sacred book is a piece of ****. Actually, thanks to the autocensor, that word could be anything at all, so I shouldn't be too critical.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

You said they ought to have their feelings hurt until they grow up. That is a judgement that their feelings are wrong and ought to be altered. Why is it your right to decide that their feelings are wrong and ought to be altered?

No, it's an opinion.

We could both use your logic though. You saying that I decided their feelings are wrong is a judgment that you think I think their feelings should be corrected. Why is it your right to decide that?

I simply think it's the logical result if they choose to have a belief system that requires them to be offended at something that is none of their business. They CHOOSE to be hurt. No one is actually hurting them, they are simply DECIDING to be hurt and then trying to blame someone other than themselves. No judgment is being made on my part at all.

The assumption is that if somebody doesn't do anything bad to you then you don't do anything bad to them, unless your absolutely can't help it or there is some even more pressing reason for doing something that would hurt them.

No. The assumption on your part is that you can decide that someone else's actions that have absolutely nothing to do with you can be claimed to be hurting you and then you can accuse them of damage. That's bogus and nonsense.

You don't have the right to tell me that my burning a book is doing something bad to you. My burning a book would be none of your business and you need to demonstrate actual damages. Otherwise I can just claim that you posting on this forum hurts my feelings and therefore you are posting here to hurt my feelings. That too would be a bogus argument.

In some countries they get upset if you hold your hand up towards them, knuckles outward with the middle finger extended upwards.

And the same holds true there. IF someone makes the decision that they want to get offended by such a gesture, then it's their problem. They could also just as easily choose to not be offended or hurt by something as petty as a configuration of fingers which does not harm them in any way.

Some people might even punch you if you do it.

And those people would go to jail for ACTUALLY harming a person.

I think we can both agree that it is silly and irrational to become upset by the configuration of somebody's fingers.

Absolutely. And even more silly to claim one has a right to accuse the person holding the fingers of hurting them. And even more silly for that person to then justify actually hurting another being.

So ought we to do this to everybody as often as possible until they grow up?

No, that makes no sense and has nothing to do with what I said. To grow up we need to stop deciding to be offended at things that are of absolutely no harm to us.

Or should we accept that if it offends them and they have not done anything to deserve being offended that we should just decide not to do it?

WRONG. I cannot accept such an immature and senseless notion. What we should accept is that if we DECIDE to be offended by something, then we DESERVE to be offended when someone does it. If we DECIDE not to be offended by something that is none of our business, then we won't be offended by it.

We should accept that we have no right to accuse people of hurting us when they do nothing to hurt us.

Is it really such a curtailment of free expression if I decide not to flip the bird at an innocent bystander?

No, it is a curtailment when you try to stop someone from expressing themselves by trying to make false claims of damages. It's a childish behavior. A grown up would understand that a gesture or a book burning in no way harms them or threatens them. A grown up understands that they have a brain and can make decisions on such things.

If you decide that something so petty such as a configuration of fingers hurts your feelings, then I personally feel you deserve to have your feelings hurt. At least until you (proverbial you) decide to grow up.