Burn a Quran day

phiwum said:
You're honestly suggesting that perhaps Pastor Jones did not know burning the Quran would cause outrage? This is, frankly, utterly unbelievable.
Click to expand...

Indeed it is. And if Billy Joe didn't know that outrage was the likely reaction when he proposed this, he's certainly been told now. And since he himself posted an example of the reaction, his claim goes beyond disingenuous into [NOT ALLOWED TO SAY THIS]

That he wouldn't know violence was a likely result is only slightly more believable -- and, of course, he surely knew that other believed so.

You say that these two statements are against evidence. Please, kind sir, show me where Terry Jones expressed any doubt that others may become outraged as a result of his proposed burning. Show me also where he suggested that he was unaware of potential violent reactions. If you can do so, then I'll retract the above statements, but also conclude that the man is dumber than a bucket of rocks.
Click to expand...

I think that Billy Joe is commenting on his own intentions. The above is equally applicable in any case.
 
BillyJoe said:
He didn't carry out his planned burning.
Click to expand...

Yes, I know that. In fact, I said as much repeatedly. Why, you even *omitted* explicit acknowledgment of this fact when you quoted me.

Here's what I wrote: it is obvious that he performed a gratuitous act (or at least announced that he would) knowing that violence was a likely result. You skipped everything in the parentheses and then insinuate that I lied because Jones didn't burn any books.

You're a piece of work.
 
BillyJoe said:
Why did he not carry out his planned burning?
Click to expand...

Well, if you take him at his word, he changed his mind as a result of a compromise regarding the NYC mosque.

Perhaps you mean that he realized his planned burning would result in avoidable violence and hence was not a good idea. If this is indeed what happened (and it seems plausible enough), then it's good that he didn't burn the books.

Actually burning the books would have been a more despicable act than merely announcing that he would burn the books, but later changing his mind.

Is this your point? If so, it doesn't contradict a darned thing I said. In fact, it appears we're in agreement: burning the Quran just to send some sort of statement is a bad thing.
 
phiwum said:
Well, if you take him at his word, he changed his mind as a result of a compromise regarding the NYC mosque.

Perhaps you mean that he realized his planned burning would result in avoidable violence and hence was not a good idea. If this is indeed what happened (and it seems plausible enough), then it's good that he didn't burn the books.

Actually burning the books would have been a more despicable act than merely announcing that he would burn the books, but later changing his mind.
Click to expand...

Though it would have been even less despicable if he'd just not threatened to burn it in the first place.

Is this your point? If so, it doesn't contradict a darned thing I said. In fact, it appears we're in agreement: burning the Quran just to send some sort of statement is a bad thing.
Click to expand...

I think that Billy-Joe regards the fact that he decided not to burn it as giving in to threats and hence an indication that we need to burn more Korans. Though he'll probably accuse me of misrepresenting him and then say the same thing.
 
There was no compromise regarding the NYC mosque.

Why did he not carry out his planned burning?
 
westprog said:
I think that Billy-Joe regards the fact that he decided not to burn it as giving in to threats and hence an indication that we need to burn more Korans. Though he'll probably accuse me of misrepresenting him and then say the same thing.
Click to expand...


Wrong again. :rolleyes:
 
Enough guessing games. Say what you bloody well mean and get on with it.

BillyJoe said:
There was no compromise regarding the NYC mosque.

Why did he not carry out his planned burning?
Click to expand...

I'm fairly tired of these coy questions.

You claimed that something I said was against evidence. Why not tell me precisely what I said that was "against evidence", rather than play these silly guessing games? If you actually had a point, then just state it clearly and succinctly and if I was in error, I'll be happy to admit it.

Just to be clear: here is what I said.
A person purchases a book in order to publicly burn it in a manner guaranteed to generate media attention. He does so knowing full well that this act will cause outrage. As a result of his stated intention, a riot occurs and churches are burned. Police kill nineteen people as a result.

It is difficult to say just how much blame lies with the book burner, but it is obvious that he performed a gratuitous act (or at least announced that he would) knowing that violence was a likely result. He is surely not blameless.
​

Here is what you said.

When, against the evidence, a person imputes another person's intent and falsely attributes statements to another person that they don;t even believe to be true, you have to wonder why.​

So, explain precisely what you meant by that.
 
Saw a bit today in the LA Times that a buncha Islamics burned some Gideon bibles in East Crapistan or some other Stone Age country.
Anyone care to riot?
Thought not.
Odd that Islamics will die to protest the burning of the quran, but burn the bible.
Or is it odd?
 
Let me put it this way:

If he didn't not burn the korans because of a compromise regarding the NYC mosque - because actually there was no compromise but he still didn't burn the korans - why did he not burn the korans?
 
I Ratant said:
...a buncha Islamics burned some Gideon bibles in East Crapistan or some other Stone Age country...Odd that Islamics will die to protest the burning of the quran, but burn the bible...
Click to expand...

A few centuries ago they would probably have been burnt at the stake.

I'm not sure we can afford a few centuries of just quiet diplomacy to break down the Islamic intolerance of other peoples' points of view.
A more aggressive approach is called for.

Also, the subjugation of women is totally unacceptable and it is unacceptable that the right to religious belief is used to justify lack of action on this front.
 
BillyJoe said:
Let me put it this way:

If he didn't not burn the korans because of a compromise regarding the NYC mosque - because actually there was no compromise but he still didn't burn the korans - why did he not burn the korans?
Click to expand...

No.

You claimed that what I said was wrong or even dishonest. Tell me why you said that, rather than repeatedly asking me questions. You aren't Socrates.

Or else, admit that you were mistaken and what I claimed was pretty close to the truth as we understand it.

But no more silly guessing games. If you have a point, make it.
 
BillyJoe said:
A few centuries ago they would probably have been burnt at the stake.

I'm not sure we can afford a few centuries of just quiet diplomacy to break down the Islamic intolerance of other peoples' points of view.
A more aggressive approach is called for.

Also, the subjugation of women is totally unacceptable and it is unacceptable that the right to religious belief is used to justify lack of action on this front.
Click to expand...
.
Aggression, like ridicule, can't work against faith. The faith has to be weakened from within.
There has to be a logical chink in the armor of Islam that can be exploited to cause believers to begin the doubt the inerrancy of their faith.
The chink that worked with Christianity doesn't exist in Islam... "Render to God all things that are God's, to man all the things that are man's", as Islam considers everything God's.
All that occurs in Islam is splinter groups following some weird interpretations of the texts.
Something logical that most Muslims can accept as a separation of the faith from reality is needed.
Then the intelligent ones will flock to it, to escape the horrors that Islam holds dear.
 
I Ratant said:
Aggression, like ridicule, can't work against faith.
Click to expand...

I am living proof against that assertion.

The faith has to be weakened from within.
Click to expand...
Are you kidding me?
Faith is only strengthened from within and can only be weakened from without.

There has to be a logical chink in the armor of Islam that can be exploited to cause believers to begin the doubt the inerrancy of their faith.
Something logical that most Muslims can accept as a separation of the faith from reality is needed.
Click to expand...
You think it's difficult to find a logical chink in Islam?
Is that what you're saying?

Then the intelligent ones will flock to it, to escape the horrors that Islam holds dear.
Click to expand...
You think the fundamentalists are not intelligent?
To some extent the moderates - intelligent and unintelligent - have done that.
The problem is....they will not naysay the fundamentalists if their lives depended on it.
 
Last edited:
BillyJoe said:
Will Christians now be demanding the same sort of protection as Muslims?

One has demanded the withdrawal of a Tourism Victoria advertisement:

Here is the advertisment:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7XY27oZeZA

Here is the demand:
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/po...dry-offensive-ad-campaign-20101007-169nl.html

The advertisement must be "withdrawn instantly and replaced with an apology"!

I guess what's good for the goose is good for the gander
Click to expand...

Oh noes!!!! Someone has complained about something. Scorn them! Mock them, for being offended. And do so until they just don't care anymore. Christians should shut up when people say they are two-faced, double-life leading frauds.

The news article says: "The advertisement is not merely a movie made by an individual as an artistic endeavour. The ad wears a stamp of authority. It comes from our state government, ..." Is that correct? If so, then in what ways do you think the state government should portray religion?



As for the ad itself....

I liked the comment on the Youtube video:
AnarchyTheGator said:
What was this ad trying to say?

I'm from Perth and it came across as:

Come to Victoria, you will be invited to a strange party where you will be converted by a cult, baptized and forced to slave in the berry fields..

I'm not going to be visiting Victoria anytime soon.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom