Burn a Quran day

[FireGarden]

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.

Actually, I said you don't mind bigotry when it's aimed at Muslims. Maybe you don't have the enthusiasm to engage in it yourself.

And the motives you give don't seem to be Pastor Jones' motives. But, of course, you're a different book burner. Your book burnings have an eloquence which makes it clear that you are against intolerance. Well good on you. I imagine you dance round the bonfire singing "All you need is love!"

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...

What about Muslims 'slapping their equality in the face' of those who treat them according to stereotypes? How do they do this while Quran burnings 'get beyond a certain point'? What is this point? Do you think there would be cause for concern if Quran burnings where daily? What if 50% of Americans burnt a Quran? Would you be worried then? Is there any part of you which can understand why a Muslim would be worried by that extent of Quran burning? If there is such a part of you, then what makes you think a little bit of Quran burning is good? And is there any part of you that can see why I think you are saying "keep pissing on them until they don't mind the stench of urine, then they'll stop complaining"?

 

[Robin]

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.

Do you think people choose what they believe?

Could you decide to believe that Muhammad was the final messenger of God and that the Quran was the literal word of God?

Let me try .... nope, can't do it.

So ought we to do this (flip the bird) to everybody as often as possible until they grow up?

No, that makes no sense and has nothing to do with what I said.

That is exactly what you said. Here is it in your own words:

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.

So why is it different for flipping the bird? Using the same logic we should all flip the bird at as many people as possible until they grow up.

What is the difference?

But then I see you contradict yourself at the end:

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.

So you do think that it is a good idea to go around and flip the bird at all and sundry, even if they have done nothing to you.

 

[Robin]

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

Yes, exactly.

 

[Robin]

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.

So you are saying that when I didn't swear in front of my great-aunts, I was being immature and senseless?

You are saying that the mature and sensible thing to do would be to swear like a trooper in front of these good and kind women even though I know it distresses them and makes them feel disrespected?

Does anyone else buy that?

 

[Robin]

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.

Can you cite anyone who has suggested this?

As far as I know people have said "if you burn the book people will get hurt, so maybe you shouldn't do it".

But I have never heard anybody say "if you burn the book people will get hurt and it will be your fault".

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Do you think people choose what they believe?

I know they do. That's what makes it a belief.

Could you decide to believe that Muhammad was the final messenger of God and that the Quran was the literal word of God?

It could not be done without a decision.

Let me try .... nope, can't do it.

You just did. You chose NOT to believe. Just like some people choose TO believe. Are you suggesting people are born with a belief and have no control over it? That perhaps if born on a desert Island someone would become a Muslim with no interaction of anyone else? No reading of a holy book? Of course not. They are given information and they decide to believe it.

That is exactly what you said. Here is it in your own words:

So why is it different for flipping the bird? Using the same logic we should all flip the bird at as many people as possible until they grow up.

What is the difference?

That's your words, not mine.

But then I see you contradict yourself at the end:

So you do think that it is a good idea to go around and flip the bird at all and sundry, even if they have done nothing to you.

Again, your words not mine.

 

[Robin]

I know they do. That's what makes it a belief.

The fact that you might, on a whim, believe the very opposite is what makes it a belief?

You just did.

I just succeeded in believing that Muhamad was Gods final messenger? And that the Quran was the literal word of God?

You could have fooled me.

. You chose NOT to believe.

Oh, I see. I succeeded by getting the opposite result from the one I was trying for.

Are you are saying that you might be able to choose to believe that Muhammad was Gods last messenger and that the Quran is God's literal word?

Go on then. Believe it sincerely for the next 24 hours. And after that tell me honestly that you succeeded in believing - not the negation - but the think I asked you to believe.

That's your words, not mine.

Are you serious?

Here are the words I quoted:

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.​

So you are honestly telling me, hand on heart that these are my words and not yours?

Again, your words not mine.

And again - here is the part that I quoted:

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.​

So you are telling me that these are not your words?

Here is the link to my post to demonstrate that these are the exact words I quoted.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6340903#post6340903

 

[BillyJoe]

FireGarden:

"you don't mind bigotry when it's aimed at Muslims"
"Maybe you don't have the enthusiasm to engage in it yourself"
"But, of course, you're a different book burner"
"I imagine you dance round the bonfire singing "All you need is love!""

You could make a good bonfire yourself with all that straw.

What about Muslims 'slapping their equality in the face' of those who treat them according to stereotypes?

I encourage them to do it.
That won't be slapping me in the face though, only to the strawman billyjoe you've constructed.

How do they do this while Quran burnings 'get beyond a certain point'? What is this point? Do you think there would be cause for concern if Quran burnings where daily? What if 50% of Americans burnt a Quran? Would you be worried then? Is there any part of you which can understand why a Muslim would be worried by that extent of Quran burning? If there is such a part of you, then what makes you think a little bit of Quran burning is good? And is there any part of you that can see why I think you are saying "keep pissing on them until they don't mind the stench of urine, then they'll stop complaining"?

There are groups of intolerant Americans who are still complaining about equal rights for negroes and equal rights for gays and they are most emphatically worried and upset. Let them be worried and upset. Free speech is much too important.

 

[BillyJoe]

No, the best way to achieve peace and understanding is to tell people that their sacred book is a piece of ****.

Actually the best way to achieve understanding amongst racial bigots, homophobes, and those who would kill you for burning a book is to sit down with them and have a good old chat.

 

[BillyJoe]

...you are still not answering the question...What is step 2?

You have a right to ask me a question.
(But you don't have a right to decide how I will answer it).

I have answered it.
I have explained how it works and I have given you historical precedent.

You ignore my answer and ask your question again.

 

[FireGarden]

FireGarden:

"you don't mind bigotry when it's aimed at Muslims"
"Maybe you don't have the enthusiasm to engage in it yourself"
"But, of course, you're a different book burner"
"I imagine you dance round the bonfire singing "All you need is love!""

You could make a good bonfire yourself with all that straw.

So you're not a different type of book burner. Are you the same type of book burner? Or are you not a book burner at all?

I encourage them to do it.
That won't be slapping me in the face though, only to the strawman billyjoe you've constructed.

Encouraging them doesn't explain how.

I do think they'll be slapping the Quran-burners in the face. Not the cheerleaders, though, who so obviously are full of sweetness and light.

There are groups of intolerant Americans who are still complaining about equal rights for negroes and equal rights for gays and they are most emphatically worried and upset. Let them be worried and upset. Free speech is much too important.

This does absolutely nothing to answer my questions.
You have done nothing to convince me that burning Qurans is a good thing. Your 'historical precedents' seem very strange. Your arguments amount to "blacks and gays weren't always polite, therefore not being polite is fruitful".

I'll repeat my questions:
What about Muslims 'slapping their equality in the face' of those who treat them according to stereotypes? How do they do this while Quran burnings 'get beyond a certain point'? What is this point? Do you think there would be cause for concern if Quran burnings where daily? What if 50% of Americans burnt a Quran? Would you be worried then? Is there any part of you which can understand why a Muslim would be worried by that extent of Quran burning? If there is such a part of you, then what makes you think a little bit of Quran burning is good? And is there any part of you that can see why I think you are saying "keep pissing on them until they don't mind the stench of urine, then they'll stop complaining"?

I think you are smart enough to know the answer to those questions. If 50% of Americans burnt the Quran that would be an awful thing. You know precisely how a Muslim would feel in that environment -- not just in America but around the world. And you know why they would feel that way. And that they would be justified in feeling that way.

But you can go on talking about Quran burnings 'reaching a certian point' -- without naming that point because you know you can't. You can't even guarantee it would be below 50%. You can't even guarantee that Quran burnings would stop if Muslims ignored them. Without pressure on Pastor Jones, he would have gone ahead and I feel justified in saying that many would have joined him.

Not you, of course. I don't want to accuse you of book burning. You're not a book burner. I apologise for ever having thought you were. I honestly don't know where I got the idea you might burn a book. I blame my over-active imagination.

 

[westprog]

You don't have the right to tell me

Yeah, he does.

 

[westprog]

Can you cite anyone who has suggested this?

As far as I know people have said "if you burn the book people will get hurt, so maybe you shouldn't do it".

But I have never heard anybody say "if you burn the book people will get hurt and it will be your fault".

I cannot refute argument A. However, I can refute argument B easily. So I will ignore A and deal only with B. If nothing else, it will use up time as my opponents keep having to explain that they mean A not B. And some of them might be fooled into defending B.

 

[BillyJoe]

"if you burn the book people will get hurt, so maybe you shouldn't do it".
I cannot refute argument A.

Really?

If I go outside right now and burn a koran, no one will get hurt. Hence refuted. If I publicise the fact, maybe someone will get hurt depending on who the publiciity reaches. Hence, at the very least, the first bit should read: "if you burn the book maybe people will get hurt..."

On the other hand, the second bit actually contains a maybe. A sort of rhetorical maybe that is intended to be read as follows: "...so maybe you shouldn't do it".

The problem here is that history shows that diplomacy alone never changed anything. A degree of militancy is required to counteract the intolerant homophobes, racists, and anti-feminists and to get the moderates off their collective asses. How far do you think women, blacks, and gays would have gotten without demanding change instead of asking please. How far would they have gotten without protest and disruption, without upsetting peoples' comfortable lives?

"if you burn the book people will get hurt and it will be your fault".
However, I can refute argument B easily.

Well, good for you.

 

[BillyJoe]

....and, if you think racism, homophobia, and femininsm are not relevent here, then I would encourage you to think globally, and to imagine yourself in an Islamic country under sharia law.

 

[FireGarden]

The problem here is that history shows that diplomacy alone never changed anything. A degree of militancy is required to counteract the intolerant homophobes, racists, and anti-feminists and to get the moderates off their collective asses. How far do you think women, blacks, and gays would have gotten without demanding change instead of asking please. How far would they have gotten without protest and disruption, without upsetting peoples' comfortable lives?

There are various ways to demand change. MLK demanded his rights -- he didn't do it while pissing off the moderates who were sat on their arses. Rosa Parks demanded her rights, she didn't do it by pissing off the moderates who were sat on their arses. She did it by choosing to sit where she wanted to sit.

You've not answered my questions, because you know the answers don't support your position. Let's ask the same of Rosa Parks... What if 50% of Americans ignored segregation? Would that worry her? Of course not. The more the merrier. It would have been a show of support for something worth doing.

If 50% of Americans burned Qurans, even you would be worried. Because it is an intolerant act. If it is any kind of demand, then it is an unacceptable thing to demand. What Rosa Parks demanded was totally acceptable.

....and, if you think racism, homophobia, and femininsm are not relevent here, then I would encourage you to think globally, and to imagine yourself in an Islamic country under sharia law.

We are not in an Islamic country under sharia, nor are we likely to be. Those who are have not asked for this kind of help.

If we were in an Islamic country under sharia, there would be better ways of demanding our rights than pissing off the moderates who are sat on their arses. Like MLK, I'd prefer a dream to a nightmare.

 

[BillyJoe]

There are various ways to demand change. MLK demanded his rights -- he didn't do it while pissing off the moderates who were sat on their arses. Rosa Parks demanded her rights, she didn't do it by pissing off the moderates who were sat on their arses. She did it by choosing to sit where she wanted to sit.

You are kidding right?
You are telling me MLK and RP didn't upset the status quo and the moderates who support it?

Of course, there comes a point where the staus quo changes, and the moderates along with it, and it's these sort of actions and these sort of people who change it and them.

You've not answered my questions, because you know the answers don't support your position. Let's ask the same of Rosa Parks... What if 50% of Americans ignored segregation? Would that worry her? Of course not. The more the merrier. It would have been a show of support for something worth doing.

Your analogy is false:
RP challenged segregation by remaining sitting in a bus instead of giving it up to a white person which was the way things were done in those days.
The pastor challenged the intolerance and threats of death against non-believers, by burning korans.
That is the proper analogy.

If 50% of Americans burned Qurans, even you would be worried. Because it is an intolerant act. If it is any kind of demand, then it is an unacceptable thing to demand. What Rosa Parks demanded was totally acceptable.

So its okay to kill a few thousand non-believers in plane crash.
It's okay to kill people who do not agree with you.
It's unacceptable to demand to have a different view?

Because it is an intolerant act.

As I said before the only thing to be intolerant of is intolerance itself.

We are not in an Islamic country under sharia, nor are we likely to be. Those who are have not asked for this kind of help.

That's why I asked you to think globally.
Seems like it's alright by you if others live under such intolerance as long as they do not ask for help - because to ask for help against the intolerance of sharia law risks death, almost guarantees death in some islamaic countries.

If we were in an Islamic country under sharia, there would be better ways of demanding our rights than pissing off the moderates who are sat on their arses. Like MLK, I'd prefer a dream to a nightmare.

Reality check. There would be no way of demanding rights in a country with sharia law without risking death. So, I ask you again to please think globally. Americans are not at risk but there is a larger world out there.

 

[FireGarden]

You are kidding right?
You are telling me MLK and RP didn't upset the status quo and the moderates who support it?

Yes, I am. I'm telling you they won people over to their side. That seems self evident. If you can convince me that "piss off" is the same as "win over to your side" then you can stick to your position. If there was "upset" amongst the moderates, as you put it, then the upset was aimed at the status quo not those pointing out the problems in a respectable manner. See any difference?

Your analogy is false:
RP challenged segregation by remaining sitting in a bus instead of giving it up to a white person which was the way things were done in those days.
The pastor challenged the intolerance and threats of death against non-believers, by burning korans.
That is the proper analogy.

No it isn't. It's self evident that it's not the same thing unless you want to call Clinton, Obama and the rest who complained extremists. Jones didn't win anyone over.

And my analogy is perfect. You don't want to admit the consequences of your plans being put into action. A lot of people copying Rosa Parks is obviously a good thing, because her actions were good. A lot of people copying Jones would lead to a bad state of affairs. You can't bring yourself to admit that, but neither do you argue against it. You skirt the question by pretending I don't know which point I want to highlight. I do know. And the analogy I made highlights my point very nicely. So does your dodging.

So its okay to kill a few thousand non-believers in plane crash.
It's okay to kill people who do not agree with you.
It's unacceptable to demand to have a different view?

Still dodging. Now with added straw. I have said absolutely nothing which can be confused for the above.

As I said before the only thing to be intolerant of is intolerance itself.

Cute soundbite.

That's why I asked you to think globally.
Seems like it's alright by you if others live under such intolerance as long as they do not ask for help - because to ask for help against the intolerance of sharia law risks death, almost guarantees death in some islamaic countries.

A bit more precision in your reading, please. I said they have not asked for the kind of help you're offering. They do, indeed, ask for help. And they get it from organisations like Amnesty and HRW. They also ask that our governments stop supporting dictators.

Reality check. There would be no way of demanding rights in a country with sharia law without risking death. So, I ask you again to please think globally. Americans are not at risk but there is a larger world out there.

And, yet, people do demand help. And they get it. Perhaps you should have the humility to recognise that people in a situation may know better than you what they need.

eg: http://www.iranhumanrights.org/about/

The mission of the International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran is to gather support for Iranian human rights activists and defenders who are advocating for their civil, political, social, and economic rights within the framework of international treaties and standards that define Iran’s obligations.

[...] The human rights community in Iran is in an exposed and dangerous position, subject to severe persecution and without effective support from the international community. International tensions provide a pretext for increasing repression within Iran, and remove human rights from the international agenda.

The vibrant social movements in Iran—movements, inter alia, of women, students, and workers— work courageously in an un-free environment, subject to tremendous official pressures. They urgently need and welcome international concerns and solidarity, which must be strengthened through more effective support from international civil society and intergovernmental institutions.

Do you really think that burning Qurans will help those people? Maybe you should find more effective means of support. Back in 2004, did you campaign in this lawsuit?:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4235765

Where a human rights activist in Iran, Shirin Ebadi, won the right to publish her memoirs in the USA. Too small an issue for you? Perhaps you supported her in 2009 when the harrasment increased:
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/12/10/iran-stop-harassing-shirin-ebadi

I don't think she's returned to Iran since then, but there are plenty still in Iran. She still campaigns on their behalf. This is the latest from Google News:
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=52882

See if you can contact her and ask her how many Qurans you should burn.

 

[westprog]

A bit more precision in your reading, please. I said they have not asked for the kind of help you're offering. They do, indeed, ask for help. And they get it from organisations like Amnesty and HRW. They also ask that our governments stop supporting dictators.

I'd like to hear of an example of someone in an Islamic country saying "You know what would really help us? A few people living entirely safely in a Western country burning Korans." A single example, out of all those millions.

Or you could ask, say, someone who's spent time living in an Islamic country, under rigid Sharia law, whether he or she would favour such action.

 

[BillyJoe]

FireGarden,

If you can convince me that diplomacy did it for the negro slaves rather than a demand for equality, voiced at times by protests and the breaking of laws, all of which made the moderates very uncomfortable indeed, I'll concede your point.

As I said, in time the moderates moved on and supported the call, but they had to dragged kicking and screaming in the first instance and this was not achieved by diplomacy.

Of course some slaves wanted to continue being slaves. A bit like how a long term prisoner finds it difficult to adjust to life outside prison. Should we have left slavery for those who wanted it? No. Today no negro wants to be a slave.

Muslim women subjugated under sharia law are in a similar position today.
Is it right that muslim women be regarded a second class citizens? Even if they want to? Even if they totally accept their inferior station in life?
Can change for muslim women come about by mere diplomacy?
Should I have tried dilpomacy on that psychopath?

A lot of people copying Rosa Parks is obviously a good thing, because her actions were good. A lot of people copying Jones would lead to a bad state of affairs.

Today only forty percent of people voted in the Afghan elections because of fear of the Taliban. And dozens were killed trying to vote. I suppose they shouldn't have attempted holding elections knowing that people could get killed.

Back in 1955, a lot of people copying Rosa Parks, especially in the South, could have resulted in riots in which many could have lost their lives. Would we have been justified in blaming Rosa Parks?

-----------------------------

westprog,

I'd appreciate it if you'd stop just echoing others' viewpoints.
You must be annoying even for those you rebound off.