Free speech.
Burn a Quran day
- Thread starter FireGarden
- Start date
Free speech.
FireGarden
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2002
- Messages
- 5,047
That doesn't explain the irrelevance of my post because it doesn't explain why lots of people burning Qurans is bad but a few 100 people should be able to do it without being condemned. You only have special pleading.
You argue from consequences which are far from clear will actually happen. Why should Muslims ever accept being insulted? No-one else does. Many Muslims have condemned Quran burnings without rioting, btw.
You also don't explain why Quran burning would stop if Muslims ignored it. You don't even accept that there can be motives to burn Qurans which have nothing to do with bringing about 'offence-fatigue'.
FireGarden
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2002
- Messages
- 5,047
Pastor Jones free speech wasn't being denied. That point has already been made.
Neither is the free speech of those who condemned him been denied. Nor the free speech of those who convinced him to change his mind.
In fact, free speech all around. Except in Britain, so far. As I said. I have mixed feelings about it.
Some time ago, Nick Griffin was charged with hate speech but he wasn't convicted.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bradford/6135060.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6137722.stm
2nd BBC link said:
I think this is the act referred to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_and_Religious_Hatred_Act_2006
You cannot promote tolerance within a community by tolerating the curtailment of one person's freedom by another person's religious beliefs.
That some people believe, however fervently, that the koran is a sacred text is not a sufficent reason for them to require that non-believers not satirise or criticise its content and, if sufficiently disgusted by its content, burn the damn thing.
That some people believe that the reproduction of the image of muhammad is blasphemous is not a sufficient reason for them to require that non-believers not reproduce the image of muhammad in whatever form they see fit.
In my opinion, the koran burning and the publishing of the Danish cartoons are both reactions to this requirement by believers that believers and non-believers alike regard the koran as sacred and the reproduction of the image of muhammad as blasphemous.
This is the sort of intolerance that should not be tolerated.
That some people believe, however fervently, that the koran is a sacred text is not a sufficent reason for them to require that non-believers not satirise or criticise its content and, if sufficiently disgusted by its content, burn the damn thing.
That some people believe that the reproduction of the image of muhammad is blasphemous is not a sufficient reason for them to require that non-believers not reproduce the image of muhammad in whatever form they see fit.
In my opinion, the koran burning and the publishing of the Danish cartoons are both reactions to this requirement by believers that believers and non-believers alike regard the koran as sacred and the reproduction of the image of muhammad as blasphemous.
This is the sort of intolerance that should not be tolerated.
westprog
Philosopher
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2006
- Messages
- 8,928
Since the people burning Korans are not being denied free speech, the point doesn't work.
A gesture that has to be explained is a pointless gesture
FireGarden
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2002
- Messages
- 5,047
One person's freedom to do one thing is often curtailed by another person's freedom to do something else. Laws against hate speech and incitement to violence Vs freedom of speech, for example.
It would be atrocious if 50% of people burnt Qurans. The act should be condemned even if only one person does it. Muslims have a right to feel they belong to society and Muslims in America have a right to expect Clinton to condemn any speech/act which attacks them as a group -- just as she would condemn swastikas being displayed.
That's my opinion. I don't think you have an argument which can change it. Your interpretation of symbolic acts is in no way the most natural interpretation. And no-one is required to interpret them the same way as you.
westprog
Philosopher
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2006
- Messages
- 8,928
The error is in the supposition that the best way to protest against extreme curtailments of certain actions is to carry out those actions, no matter how distasteful they might be. Someone is murdered over burning a Koran, so we should burn more Korans? A mentally retarded woman is executed in Virginia, so people ought to go out and murder their spouses in protest?
FireGarden
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2002
- Messages
- 5,047
How's about "Run over a bicycle day"? No religion to confuse the issue.
Bicycles are very slow and it's not always convenient to overtake them, so you have to slow down. How to complain about this? Simple... Buy a bicycle of your own (wouldn't want to be a vandal) and run it over. And if you can't afford that, use a cardboard bicycle.
How can this possibly be interpreted as anything other than wanting to assert my right to drive at the speed limit? I'm sure no-one would worry if a few hundred people got into the habit -- bicycle manufacturers would be chuffed, at any rate.
Bicycles are very slow and it's not always convenient to overtake them, so you have to slow down. How to complain about this? Simple... Buy a bicycle of your own (wouldn't want to be a vandal) and run it over. And if you can't afford that, use a cardboard bicycle.
How can this possibly be interpreted as anything other than wanting to assert my right to drive at the speed limit? I'm sure no-one would worry if a few hundred people got into the habit -- bicycle manufacturers would be chuffed, at any rate.
Aepervius
Non credunt, semper verificare
FireGarden
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2002
- Messages
- 5,047
Release the dogs....
They aim to keep it that way in the face of laws that would take free speech away from them.
Such a law is sharia law.
How is that in any way relevant to what I said:
"You cannot promote tolerance within a community by tolerating the curtailment of one person's freedom by another person's religious beliefs."
So you would protect a person's right to free speech and then condemn him for exercising it?
Attacking ideas is not the same as attacking those who hold those ideas.
If we had to avoid attacking ideas because doing so would upset those who believe in them, we might as well give up on free speech right now.
Of course this seems to somehow apply only to religious ideas. It seems that, for you, Nazism is fair game.
But the koran does require that.
The koran is intolerant of an alternative view.
The koran encourages the killing of those who disagree.
Do you ever have anything useful to say?
That's right! The best way to protest against the curtailment of free speech is to...wait for it...you will never guess....to exercise your free speech!
FireGarden,
You have swapped the driver's seat for a comfortable lie down at the back of the bus.
It is precisely religion that IS confusing this issue for you.
Those cyclists do not require you to give up your car and ride a bicycle, and they do not threaten to kill you if you refuse to do so. The koran requires you to give up your belief and threatens to kill you if you do not do so.
If sufficiently motivated to do so, we might choose to burn a koran in protection of our free speech and against the intolerance promoted in that book, but we leave the harmless cyclist alone.
In the first case, it is the target (the koran) that is being intolerant. In the second case, it is the targeteer (the motorist) who is being intolerant.
You have swapped the driver's seat for a comfortable lie down at the back of the bus.
It is precisely religion that IS confusing this issue for you.
Good example.
Those cyclists do not require you to give up your car and ride a bicycle, and they do not threaten to kill you if you refuse to do so. The koran requires you to give up your belief and threatens to kill you if you do not do so.
If sufficiently motivated to do so, we might choose to burn a koran in protection of our free speech and against the intolerance promoted in that book, but we leave the harmless cyclist alone.
I hope you see the switch here.
In the first case, it is the target (the koran) that is being intolerant. In the second case, it is the targeteer (the motorist) who is being intolerant.
ddt
Mafia Penguin
You're oh so wrong. Cyclists are arrogant obnoxious pricks, bent on taking over the world and instituting their right (of) way.
Exhibit 1: Critical Mass.
Exhibit 2: They've already succeeded in taking over one country, The Netherlands, and have terrorized its Supreme Court into ruling that any traffic accident involving a car and a bicycle is automatically at least for 25% the fault of the car driver. It is not possible to drive around Amsterdam without looking left, right, in front, behind, above and below for possible bikes targeting your car.
Evidence?
I'm more afraid of being run over by a rogue cyclist than being attacked by a Muslim terrorist, and I think the statistics bear that out (at least in my corner of the world).
ddt
Mafia Penguin
ddt,
I don't live in The Netherlands.
And you don't live in Iran.
Perhaps we both need to think globally
You may have noticed that most of those Critical Mass incidents occurred in the US.
And for the rest, that's a cheap cop-out. You may think over the real relevance of the picture I painted of cyclists.
...oops, sorry, I didn't realise you weren't joking.
Edit:
In any case, it looks like you're getting your revenge:
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/cyclists-face-increased-injury-risk-20100925-15ro3.html
Edit:
In any case, it looks like you're getting your revenge:
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/cyclists-face-increased-injury-risk-20100925-15ro3.html
Last edited:
tsig
a carbon based life-form
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2005
- Messages
- 39,049
So you're only for free speech when you agree with it.
tsig
a carbon based life-form
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2005
- Messages
- 39,049
I have a right to feel I belong to the JREF community so your posts disagreeing with me are offensive.
That's my opinion. I don't think you have an argument which can change it. Your interpretation of symbolic acts is in no way the most natural interpretation.
Please stop posting as your posts are offensive to me.