PassedOut Posted April 6, 2011 Report Share Posted April 6, 2011 as i said, so what if muslims believe exactly as you say they do? maybe you didn't say what you meant to say, or in the way you meant to say it, but the above is very close to an attempt at justificationNot at all. If my statements were not accurate, feel free to offer specific corrections. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenberg Posted April 7, 2011 Report Share Posted April 7, 2011 Describing the pastor as stupid or idiotic doesn't quite fit for me. If a guy goes to Afghanistan and burns the Qu'ran in public while there, that seems stupid. He would shortly be a dead idiot. Getting other people killed for his publicity stunt is not necessarily evidence of a low IQ. If the result was in accordance with his intentions, then I guess he is a success on his terms. I think the pastor is scum. Scum often know all their legal rights, every last one of them, and can explain their moral mission to all who will listen. They are still scum. I give everyone full permission to rephrase "scum" in any moral terms they wish, but the guy is still scum. This in no way whatsoever is intended to excuse someone killing someone else because the sum insulted his faith. It's not even an excuse for killing the pastor, although I would shed few tears. That the killers are responsible for their actions in no way changes the fact that the pastor is scum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted April 7, 2011 Report Share Posted April 7, 2011 When I was 8 or 9, I was at my grandfather's farm and there was a large wasp nest in the house's eaves. I hated wasps. I hated them so much that I decided to fill a large glass with water, splash the nest, and run into the house. Unfortunately, about a gazillion angry wasps fly faster in formation than 9-year-old legs can run, and so my attack on this colony of "sleeping dogs" was an unmitigated failure, and I was stung several times. My actions were stupid. The wasps were just being wasps. Wasps don't think, they act on instinct. Humans think. Are you saying that the murderers in the incident at hand are not human? They are to be forgiven what they've done because they're sub-human? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hrothgar Posted April 7, 2011 Report Share Posted April 7, 2011 i don't think that analogy holds, though you might could find one that does... one is an illegal act and the other legal... Comment 1: You used the word "blame" which has a very different context than "legal" Comment 2: I'd appreciate a comment from one of the lawyers present... Can I bring a civil suit against some one who hasn't broken a law? i could be wrong here, but i think it's a settled legal question that the consequences of an illegal act fall on the one acting Comment 3: My understanding is that negligence can be apportioned between multiple parties Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike777 Posted April 7, 2011 Report Share Posted April 7, 2011 It had to happen - a Florida church finally burned a copy of the Quran, leading to violent protests in Afghanistan. What exactly was the point of this episode other than to use the Islamic faith as a proxy for Salem witches? If this is ATB then: 25% the moron preacher75% the murderers who chopped off heads-- I hope moderate Muslims around the world will step up.Moderate Christians already call this preacher an idiot at best. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nige1 Posted April 7, 2011 Report Share Posted April 7, 2011 Agree with helene_t. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matmat Posted April 7, 2011 Report Share Posted April 7, 2011 I wonder how much extra the state of Florida (and the feds!) now have to pay to protect his sorry ass. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nige1 Posted April 7, 2011 Report Share Posted April 7, 2011 When I was 8 or 9, I was at my grandfather's farm and there was a large wasp nest in the house's eaves. I hated wasps. I hated them so much that I decided to fill a large glass with water, splash the nest, and run into the house.Unfortunately, about a gazillion angry wasps fly faster in formation than 9-year-old legs can run, and so my attack on this colony of "sleeping dogs" was an unmitigated failure, and I was stung several times. My actions were stupid. The wasps were just being wasps. The pastor as a 9-year-old boy is close enough but, IMO, your wasp analogy is patronising and racist. It demeans those whom you wish to exonerate. They weren't instinct-driven insects -- they were intelligent human beings, aware of what they were doing. They didn't reflexly sting their tormentor -- they expressed their belated disapproval by killing strangers. Oh No :(I see I've agreed with Blackshoe, again :( :( :( Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted April 7, 2011 Report Share Posted April 7, 2011 Heh. B-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helene_t Posted April 7, 2011 Report Share Posted April 7, 2011 What I mean is, if a TV personality says on the air that "Obama likes to drink beer" and then some crazy prohibitionist tries to shoot the president because he believes what he saw on TV, we don't blame the TV personality. This is because shooting someone for liking beer is crazy.I don't think it matters per se whether it takes craziness or not to kill Obama. If I give a loaded gun to a lunatic and tell him only to use it in self defense, and he then kills some random bystander, am I responsible? I would say it depends on whether I should have known (or at least catered to the possibility) that he was a lunatic. The pastor should have known (in fact he probably did know) of the likely consequences of his action. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted April 7, 2011 Report Share Posted April 7, 2011 There are laws against "inciting to riot" or "yelling fire in a crowded theater" or suchlike. Whether what the pastor has done goes beyond "freedom of expression" and falls under one of the aforementioned laws is a matter for the courts to decide. Of course, the courts won't get the chance unless some prosecutor somewhere, or possibly a Grand Jury, decides to indict. It seems likely that if that were going to happen, it would have already. :unsure: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
y66 Posted April 7, 2011 Report Share Posted April 7, 2011 ... they were intelligent human beings, aware of what they were doing. They didn't reflexly sting their tormentor ... I thought the reflexive, unthinking elements of the analogy were apt. Also, it is hardly demeaning or racist to compare human attributes and actions to those of non-human creatures. For example, if you say someone "floats like a butterfly, stings like a bee" you are not demeaning them in a racist way. Come on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olegru Posted April 7, 2011 Report Share Posted April 7, 2011 When I was 8 or 9, I was at my grandfather's farm and there was a large wasp nest in the house's eaves. I hated wasps. I hated them so much that I decided to fill a large glass with water, splash the nest, and run into the house. Unfortunately, about a gazillion angry wasps fly faster in formation than 9-year-old legs can run, and so my attack on this colony of "sleeping dogs" was an unmitigated failure, and I was stung several times. My actions were stupid. The wasps were just being wasps.Very nice analogy. By the way is the large wasp nest still in your grandfather's house? ;) Or your childish actions and suffering finaly forced adults to make smarter actions to prevent their kids to be sting by wasps? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hrothgar Posted April 7, 2011 Report Share Posted April 7, 2011 When I was 8 or 9, I was at my grandfather's farm and there was a large wasp nest in the house's eaves. I hated wasps. I hated them so much that I decided to fill a large glass with water, splash the nest, and run into the house. Unfortunately, about a gazillion angry wasps fly faster in formation than 9-year-old legs can run, and so my attack on this colony of "sleeping dogs" was an unmitigated failure, and I was stung several times. My actions were stupid. The wasps were just being wasps. I actually have a very similar story, however 1. I went to war with a set of yellow jackets rather than wasps2. I was closer to 133. I decided that chlorine gas was the way to go Luckily, my best friend's father was smart enough to understand what mixing two parts bleach to one part ammonia does and took quick action to prevent the "death cloud" from engulfing the neighborhood... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hrothgar Posted April 7, 2011 Report Share Posted April 7, 2011 Interesting article discussing the chain of events http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/making-sense-of-news/126878/florida-quran-burning-afghanistan-violence-raise-questions-about-the-power-of-media-blackouts/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenberg Posted April 7, 2011 Report Share Posted April 7, 2011 Let me attempt to phrase a question: Is there a road out of this? I am no expert on anti-blasphemy laws but my guess is that it would have been dangerous to burn a Bible in many places in eighteenth century America. I don't think it would have been that good a move in London either. We now see things differently. But not everyone everywhere agrees. So basically we are in the following spot: Any fool with a matchbook can set off an international incident. He burns a Quran, his rights are protected, Muslims, egged on by their religious leaders, go nuts, people who were just leading their lives die. Please, I am not excusing anyone. I am asking: Will we just be putting up with this for the foreseeable future? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hrothgar Posted April 7, 2011 Report Share Posted April 7, 2011 I am asking: Will we just be putting up with this for the foreseeable future? Yeap... If we're lucky, we'll still be able to burn a bible here in the US without getting our head blown off by a tea bagger... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luke warm Posted April 7, 2011 Report Share Posted April 7, 2011 Not at all. If my statements were not accurate, feel free to offer specific corrections.what does accuracy have to do with it? justification can be made whether the underlying statements are accurate or not Comment 1: You used the word "blame" which has a very different context than "legal"true, but your analogy compared a legal act with an illegal one Comment 2: I'd appreciate a comment from one of the lawyers present... Can I bring a civil suit against some one who hasn't broken a law?i'm not a lawyer but i believe you can bring a civil suit against anyone for anything Comment 3: My understanding is that negligence can be apportioned between multiple partiesthen compare two negligent but legal acts, or two negligent but illegal acts I think the pastor is scum. Scum often know all their legal rights, every last one of them, and can explain their moral mission to all who will listen. They are still scum. I give everyone full permission to rephrase "scum" in any moral terms they wish, but the guy is still scum.agree Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hrothgar Posted April 7, 2011 Report Share Posted April 7, 2011 what does accuracy have to do with it? justification can be made whether the underlying statements are accurate or not true, but your analogy compared a legal act with an illegal one ... then compare two negligent but legal acts, or two negligent but illegal acts Why? No one is arguing about the legality of Jones' act... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winstonm Posted April 7, 2011 Author Report Share Posted April 7, 2011 Wasps don't think, they act on instinct. Humans think. Are you saying that the murderers in the incident at hand are not human? They are to be forgiven what they've done because they're sub-human? IMO it takes a warped perspective to think this story is about the actions of the wasps. What I am saying is that burning the qu'ran was a stupid act in and of itself. Killing people over holy books is stupid, too. There was stupid enough to go around on all sides to fill all Florida beaches and have enough left over to fill the Orange Bowl. The wasps were only acting like wasps. (In other words, there actions were totally predictable.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winstonm Posted April 7, 2011 Author Report Share Posted April 7, 2011 The pastor as a 9-year-old boy is close enough but, IMO, your wasp analogy is patronising and racist. It demeans those whom you wish to exonerate. They weren't instinct-driven insects -- they were intelligent human beings, aware of what they were doing. They didn't reflexly sting their tormentor -- they expressed their belated disapproval by killing strangers. Oh No :(I see I've agreed with Blackshoe, again :( :( :( How weird - both you and Blackshoe seem to think the wasps represent Islamics, when they do not. I would venture it is you who has the racist view to attach an analogy between an insect and a human. As I pointed out, the story is simply to show that acting stupid is acting stupid. Lukewarm said only one side was stupid. My story was a refutation of that. Burning someone else's holy book is a stupid thing to do, regardless. Killing people over the burning of the book is stupid. These are separate actions - both stupid. I never said anything about apportioning a degree of morality to each act - that would be a different circumstance. The reason the burning is stupid IMO is because it serves no purpose other than to outrage. Killing people because some book is considered holy is too stupid to have to explain. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hrothgar Posted April 7, 2011 Report Share Posted April 7, 2011 The pastor as a 9-year-old boy is close enough but, IMO, your wasp analogy is patronising and racist. It demeans those whom you wish to exonerate. They weren't instinct-driven insects -- they were intelligent human beings, aware of what they were doing. They didn't reflexly sting their tormentor -- they expressed their belated disapproval by killing strangers. In what way, shape, or form is Winston's post racist? Large groups of people, regardless of race or religion, are capable of amazing acts of cruelty when they get riled up. I don't consider this behavior specific to muslims or necessarily to Afghanis...It wasn't that long ago that you had lynching here in the US. (Hell, even today 46% of Republicans in Mississippi apparently believe that inter racial marriage should be outlawed) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nige1 Posted April 7, 2011 Report Share Posted April 7, 2011 How weird - both you and Blackshoe seem to think the wasps represent Islamics, when they do not. I apologise for misinterpreting Winstonm's analogy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winstonm Posted April 8, 2011 Author Report Share Posted April 8, 2011 I apologise for misinterpreting Winstonm's analogy. No worries, mate. We all time-to-time misunderstand written intentions. The only thing I really take exception to is your implication that I am somehow attempting to exonerate murderous fundamental Islamics. I am not and I do not. Both sides - the Christian fundies and the Islamic fundies are nutcases. I have nothing but contempt for any aggressive action based on the skewed thinking that one set of delusional beliefs is superior to another set of equally delusional beliefs. Take away the idiotic belief system from each side, and this incident was a non-starter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PassedOut Posted April 8, 2011 Report Share Posted April 8, 2011 what does accuracy have to do with it? justification can be made whether the underlying statements are accurate or notReally? How can true statements justify unjustifiable acts? Are you saying that the matter must be described falsely to prevent some people from imagining a justification? No thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.