Opinions On Koran Burning

Quote: P90

I don't think Jerry Singer has actually completed Trolling 101. A lot of aspiring Trolls skip it and go straight to 201 - learning some elements of advanced techniques, but missing on crucial points, such as that the troll post should almost always be shorter than the opponent's, and that the troll should work to start a chain reaction to drop out of the flame before it gets mod-hot.

P.S. Also, ironic while at that: Claiming to have a winning VP system that doesn't stand up to mathematical analysis actually produces somewhat similar results to burning a Qur'an, though on a much lesser scale.

Good one Einstein.....except that I started this thread.

P.S. Also, if you're referring to Me. singer's success at the machines, you might want to go over to the other thread and sign up with all the others who are accepting his challenge to play winning vp in front of them. Oh wait a minute!.....They're all hiding, not signing up, and they're popping up in other threads hoping they don't get noticed hiding!

Funny thing: Until recently I actually worked under the assumption that your name being JL2 is just April Fools theme, and you aren't actually Jerry Singer.

Quote: JL2

Good one Einstein.....except that I started this thread.

!

Jerry Jerry Jerry, give it up , Dude. You're busted.

Quote: EvenBob

Jerry Jerry Jerry, give it up , Dude. You're busted.

It's the internet Bob, enjoy it. 1848 posts gives YOU away!

Quote: JL2

That's just it. You can count on angry mobs NOT running down your street because it's stupid and dangerous. People here have something to lose.

If the people being offended are not barbaric in nature then they would not be dangerous to one another. But these people are, and they sow what they reap.

So, your philosophy is that it is ok to offend people that have nothing to lose? Or what?
Or is it the other way around? Should only those be offended that have something to lose, because they are less dangerous?
Which is it? You lost me ...
And what does it have to do with civilization? Civilized people don't offend others, at least, not on purpose.


The reason that the guy in question chose to burn a book instead of a house is not that he is so civilized, but simply, like you said, because he's got something to lose. In all other respects his act was just as barbaric.
Cowardliness does not equate to civilization, although, it can mimic it at times, but only superficially.

Quote:

Burning books in this country is not only civilized, it's protected free speech. And that is the only thing that counts.

It's protected, ok ... But still barbaric. If this is "the only thing" you want to count, it's your choice. There are other things in life though. You can choose to ignore them, but it does not make them any less important (to civilized people).

Quote: weaselman

So, your philosophy is that it is ok to offend people that have nothing to lose? Or what?
Or is it the other way around? Should only those be offended that have something to lose, because they are less dangerous?
Which is it? You lost me ...
And what does it have to do with civilization? Civilized people don't offend others, at least, not on purpose.

The reason that the guy in question chose to burn a book instead of a house is not that he is so civilized, but simply, like you said, because he's got something to lose. In all other respects his act was just as barbaric.
Cowardliness does not equate to civilization, although, it can mimic it at times, but only superficially.

It's protected, ok ... But still barbaric. If this is "the only thing" you want to count, it's your choice. There are other things in life though. You can choose to ignore them, but it does not make them any less important (to civilized people).

My philosophy is that in this country there is nothing more important than free speech. If people like this pastor and that Westboro church choose to do something stupid with that right then it's up to them. Offending people happens all the time, just look at this and any other forum. If those who feel offended by a particular expression of free speech can't react in a civilized way then they created their own problems and I have zero sympathy for them. Every person has a choice to make and it's up to them to make the right one.

The barbarians in those countries only riot because they have a high percentage of people who lead miserable lives. Much like you only see violent protesters over here being dropped-out students, potheads, people without jobs, drifters etc. you see the same level of society over there creating violence out of whatever situation they can. That is not civilized behavior. Burning a Koran, no matter how offensive, is.

The pastor was protesting the radical Islamic problem in this world. Like it or not, he is right about the problem but his method was insensitive. Still, he had every right to do it.

Quote: JL2

My philosophy is that in this country there is nothing more important than free speech.

This is exactly where you are wrong. There are many things more important than free speech.
People lives in particular are way more important.

Quote:

If people like this pastor and that Westboro church choose to do something stupid with that right then it's up to them.

I don't dispute that. It is up to them. But that is no justification for what they've done. If somebody forced him to do what he's done, that could be a mitigating factor. But exactly because it was up to him, and he, on his own free will chose to do it, he is ... well ... who he is.

If you want to take a knife, and kill someone, it is up to you as well to make that decision. (the fact that you might be caught and prosecuted for it is just another factor of negative motivation ... suppose, you know for sure there is no way you will be caught).

People make decisions all the time, and most of the time those decisions are up to them. The very issue at hand is that people who want to be considered civilized are obligated to make those decisions in a certain way.

These decisions are made, based on your personal value system, where different things, good and bad, are ranked in comparison to each other. When you consider taking an action, you weigh its consequences on a scale, comprised of your personal value system, and decide for or against it accordingly. It is these decisions, these value systems that characterize a person as civilized or barbaric.

With all due respect, I cannot consider "civilized" anyone who ranks a symbolic act of self-promotion or asserting any kind of his personal right higher than lives of people, however little "sympathy" you may have for the latter.

Quote:

Offending people happens all the time, just look at this and any other forum.

So what?

Quote:

If those who feel offended by a particular expression of free speech can't react in a civilized way then they created their own problems and I have zero sympathy for them.

You are not obligated to have sympathy for them. If you consider yourself civilized, you are expected to act in a civilized manner, that's all. Your actual feelings towards a particular person or a group of people are irrelevant.

Quote:

Every person has a choice to make and it's up to them to make the right one.

Yes, that is correct. So what?

Quote:

The barbarians in those countries only riot because they have a high percentage of people who lead miserable lives.

Exactly. And the barbarians in this country choose to burn books instead, because their lives are less miserable.

A man was recently arrested for trolling mental health boards encouraging people to commit suicide, even setting up suicide pacts. Argue all you want that the victims 'couldn't act in a civilized way', they only reacted that way because they 'had miserable lives', and that they had to be pretty stupid to kill themselves because of what a stranger said, but in the end this man has blood on his hands and claiming freedom of speech does not save him from being a murderer. He set out to incite a reaction, and that reaction involved the loss of innocent lives. I believe there is a difference between offending a few people because you wanted to speak your mind, and actively seeking out people to offend knowing full well what was going to happen; for that reason I can't agree with jl2.

LOL, I was watching an interview with this con man "preacher", where the reporter asked him how many members have left his congregation since the burning: "Pretty much all of them," he replied.

This isn't an easy question. Let's see.

On the one hand the moral responsibility for any riots and killings fall squarely on the rioters and killers. It is not a civilized resposnse to riot and murder because someone offended you.

On the other hand if you know that groups of uncivilized and irrational people will riot and murder when provoked, you shouldn't provoke them.

But then these groups can demand anything from you. Perhaps allowing gay marriage offends them, or maybe they're offended we aren't all Muslims. This is a bit of an exaggeration, but where does it stop? In America, and elsewhere, if someone desecrates Christianity, the religious people there write editorials, nothing more. They don't go on a killing spree and they don't riot. So, yes, they're safe to offend.

Quote: Nareed

But then these groups can demand anything from you. Perhaps allowing gay marriage offends them, or maybe they're offended we aren't all Muslims. This is a bit of an exaggeration, but where does it stop?

Slippery slope argument is a well known logical fallacy. Don't fall for it.

Quote: weaselman

This is exactly where you are wrong. There are many things more important than free speech.
People lives in particular are way more important.

People who respect the right to free speech, or people who don't?

Humans are one of the most plentiful species on the planet among food chain tops, and certainly as far from endangered as it gets. They are categorized as "Least Concern" by IUCN, so their lives aren't really all that valuable. Maybe somewhere between a rock pigeon and a bobcat, perhaps adjusted for average biomass weight.

What is important is lives of humans who share our values, because they are ones we can profitably interact with and rely on to support us when and if the need comes.

Lives of humans who oppose our values are not only less valuable than free speech, they often even have a negative worth, like non-reprocessable nuclear waste. America as a nation is heavily involved in taking action to cease them.

Quote: P90

What is important is lives of humans who share our values, because they are ones we can profitably interact with

Well ... with views like this, you certainly aren't sharing my values ...
Don't worry though, I still consider your life more important than my right to blabber whatever the hell I want.
I think, that this is what distinguishes me from those roaming the streets in Kabul. When it comes to the guy this thread is about ... I fail to see the distinction.

Not worried at all, after all, there is law enforcement to deal with cases of people assigning negative value to others' lives, balancing it with -EV from potential loss of own freedom, which is universally valued.

Quote: weaselman

Well ... with views like this, you certainly aren't sharing my values ...

Are you sure your views are actually all that different? You appear to believe that it's OK if bad guys get killed (the guy who burned that book, or armed insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan, etc). And "bad guys" is just a layman's term for people who don't share your values.

Nothing is more important that the right of free speech. Doing so does not disrupt the lives of civilized people. It may disrupt the lives of uncivilized people. If those idiots want to run around and kill their own people/burn their own cities then they display their barbarism for the world to see and we shake our heads at it. Much like the racial riots we've had in the past, where the blacks rip apart their own neighborhoods in protest of something. It makes no sense but people do it.

The bottom line with me is I don't care one way or the other what that kook pastor did or what those ignorant Muslims responded with. It's nothing more than an item in the news that's getting visibility today, and tommorow it'll all be gone. But I do care about the right to free speech, and any civilized person knows rioting violently is not a proper response. If the pastor burns one each day for the next month then I'll support his right to do so. If some nut kills him in protest then that person will ruin their own life. I am not affected either way, other than to be happy he was able to express himself regardless how vile.

Quote: weaselman

Slippery slope argument is a well known logical fallacy. Don't fall for it.

It's not a fallacy when it happens.

Muslim cabbies in Detroit wanted the right to refuse to carry passengers carrying alcohol. The attempt fell flat, but what if instead they riot and kill a random person or two?

Quote: P90

Are you sure your views are actually all that different? You appear to believe that it's OK if bad guys get killed (the guy who burned that book, or armed insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan, etc).

I never said it was OK if the guy that burned the book is killed.
As to the insurgents ... well, "À la guerre comme à la guerre". We are not talking about the times of war. Should we have started the war in this case? That's a topic for another discussion. Some values are more worthy of than others. See above about the slippery slope argument.

Quote:

And "bad guys" is just a layman's term for people who don't share your values.

No, to me the "bad guys" are those who threaten my life (or lives or others that I care about).

Quote: Nareed

Muslim cabbies in Detroit wanted the right to refuse to carry passengers carrying alcohol. The attempt fell flat, but what if instead they riot and kill a random person or two?

Then they get arrested and prosecuted ... Why?

Quote: JL2

Nothing is more important that the right of free speech.

You already said that. You are wrong. There are lots of things, that are more important (to civilized people) than this particular right.

Quote: weaselman

As to the insurgents ... well, "À la guerre comme à la guerre". We are not talking about the times of war.

There is no separate set of values for the times of war. On the contrary, war is where you put your values to the test, both each as an individual and as nations.

The fact of the matter is, it's not human life we care about. If it was, we wouldn't have death penalty, carpet bombing, abortion, condoms, family planning. We are more than willing to eliminate human life when it's a life we don't deem worth preserving.
What we care about is the life of humans who contribute to our (preferably our) society - or, should we cut straight to the point, what we really care about is their contribution, past, ongoing and potential, explicit and implicit. Someone whose contribution to our society is negative, like a terrorist, an extremist, a bad guy, we are happy to see killed and see to it.

Quote: P90

There is no separate set of values for the times of war.

No, it is the same set of values. Some of them are worthy of going to war, others are not.

Quote:

The fact of the matter is, it's not human life we care about.

Not always, and not all of us, perhaps, and not above everything imaginable.
But "we" (civilized people) definitely do care about human life before some nutjob's right to yell bullshit.

Quote:

If it was, we wouldn't have death penalty, carpet bombing, abortion, condoms, family planning. We are more than willing to eliminate human life when it's a life we don't deem worth preserving.

Yes, this is exactly the slippery slope argument I mentioned earlier.
Some values are more important than others, some of them are even more important to some of us, then some of the lives under certain circumstances. So what?

Quote:

What we care about is the life of humans who contribute to our (preferably our) society

That's how it was in ancient Sparta. I like to think that we have changed at least somewhat since then.

Quote:

Someone whose contribution to our society is negative, like a terrorist, an extremist, a bad guy, we are happy to see killed and see to it.

Who do you mean by "we"? You? certainly, not me ...

Quote: weaselman

Not always, and not all of us, perhaps, and not above everything imaginable.
But "we" (civilized people) definitely do care about human life before some nutjob's right to yell bullshit.

Don't know about that. Every society with very rare exceptions has cared or cares about human life. What actually separates civilized people is that we also care about every nutjob's right to yell bullshit. It's an integral part of freedom, and we care about freedom.

The colonies went to war, exchanging many thousands of human lives for independence, and then again to war against each other, once again trading thousands of human lives for a preferred social structure. With that and multiple other events, I have to say that the Western Civilization, or at least some nations in it, has definitely put freedom ahead of life on more than one occasion. Sure, it's not a one-for-one trade, not one life for one speech, but it doesn't have to be.

Quote: weaselman

Quote:

What we care about is the life of humans who contribute to our (preferably our) society

That's how it was in ancient Sparta. I like to think that we have changed at least somewhat since then.

So would I, but I would bold the word like.

Quote: weaselman

Who do you mean by "we"? You? certainly, not me ...

We as a society that approves of death penalty and engaging in offensive wars. Maybe not some specific members, but most.

Quote: P90

Don't know about that. Every society with very rare exceptions has cared or cares about human life. What actually separates civilized people is that we also care about every nutjob's right to yell bullshit. It's an integral part of freedom, and we care about freedom.

Yes, I am not saying we should not care about freedom or about the bullshit (although I would not equate one to the other). I am talking about priorities,

Quote:

We as a society that approves of death penalty and engaging in offensive wars.

We as a society do not approve of death penalty for being a muslim, and do not engage in offensive wars over bullshit.

Quote: weaselman

Yes, I am not saying we should not care about freedom or about the bullshit (although I would not equate one to the other). I am talking about priorities,

The priorities are as this: we are ready to sacrifice lives for freedoms, rights, or just peace of mind. The value of a human life is not absolute. It's how much we like the human being killed or a group he belongs to that matters.

Quote: weaselman

and do not engage in offensive wars over bullshit.

Really? That one couldn't possibly be any further away from the truth.

Quote: P90

The priorities are as this: we are ready to sacrifice lives for freedoms, rights, or just peace of mind. The value of a human life is not absolute. It's how much we like the human being killed or a group he belongs to that matters.

Yes, the value of human life is not absolute, we have already agreed on that. So non-absolute is the value of freedoms as well.
A society, a person or a group that values the freedom to burn a book above a human life does not deserve to be called civilized.

At the end of the day those barbarians in the Muslim world have no problem killing each other anyway, whether it be because of which religious sect they hang with or any other stupid issue that brings out the inherent hate within. And that misplaced hate will likely be the undoing of their own clan, as it is entirely possible that's the part of the world which will cause our next nuclear bomb to go off. And if so, they'll again deserve what they've been asking for.

Quote: weaselman

A society, a person or a group that values the freedom to burn a book above a human life does not deserve to be called civilized.

Only at 1:1 ratio. Yes, I'd rather forbid one stranger from burning a book than kill another stranger. That doesn't mean anything. Given a choice between W80'ing a small country and losing the right to free speech, I'd go for W80 any time of the day. We can always make more humans, but freedom is an endangered species.

Quote: P90

Only at 1:1 ratio. Yes, I'd rather forbid one stranger from burning a book than kill another stranger. That doesn't mean anything.

Maybe not ... It is the topic of this discussion though.

Quote:

Given a choice between W80'ing a small country and losing the right to free speech, I'd go for W80 any time of the day.

Why free speech specifically?
How about a right for an abortion? Right to smoke pot? Right to marry more than one woman? Right to marry a girl under 16?
Right to bear arms? Right to drive without a seat belt? Would you bomb somebody "any time" for these?
If not, can you explain what is the difference? Why specifically do you prefer burning books to renovating your bathroom without a permit?

Quote:

We can always make more humans, but freedom is an endangered species.

It is actually much easier to "make" than you seem to think.

Quote: weaselman

It is actually much easier to "make" than you seem to think.

Maybe, but "making" it is a very bloody process. The natural process of a government's functioning is to grow and expand its influence, both extensively and intensively, gradually eroding the rights of its subjects. It lets go rarely and slowly.The amount of freedom enjoyed in US came from a revolution, not exactly a walk in the park. Same in most countries.

Quote: P90

Maybe, but "making" it is a very bloody process.

No, not at all. It is only bloody for those who is not ready for freedom, and does not need it.

Quote:

The natural process of a government's functioning is to grow and expand its influence, both extensively and intensively, gradually eroding the rights of its subjects. It lets go rarely and slowly.The amount of freedom enjoyed in US came from a revolution, not exactly a walk in the park. Same in most countries.

To the contrary. In most countries (France, Russia, China come to mind as examples) revolutions resulted in less freedom. The process of increasing freedom was peaceful more often than not.
US is but one exception (and it is hardly a benchmark of ideal freedom in my opinion btw ... lots if not most of its proverbial "freedoms" are about bullshit like burning a book or defecating on a flag, that no sane person should ever need or care about, yet something as simple and innocent as buying a diesel car, or refusing getting shots for your children, or saying a prayer in school, is either disallowed altogether or severely restricted).

Quote: weaselman

US is but one exception (and it is hardly a benchmark of ideal freedom in my opinion btw ... lots if not most of its proverbial "freedoms" are about bullshit like burning a book or defecating on a flag, that no sane person should ever need or care about

Or like the freedom of religion. A freedom that any sane person is by definition unable to exercise.

Yeah, that too ...