A burning question

[Sister Faith]

Florida Pastor not backing down on Koran burning
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE68709M20100908

Canadian Defense Minister Peter MacKay, whose country has nearly 3,000 troops in Afghanistan, said in a statement: "This initiative is insulting to Muslims and Canadians of all faiths who understand that freedom of thought and freedom of religion are fundamental to our way of living."

I fail to see how taking advantage of fundamental rights to freedom of speech, thought, or belief is insulting. Anyone who is offended by this church's chosen manner of expressing themselves does not truly understand those rights. :(

[Cartire]

I didnt quite understand the whole thing to begin with. So he wants to burn some books. You shouldnt burn books cause they're a horrible source of fuel. Their paper burns to quickly and does not retain heat well at all. 1 Book would burn through all its carbon deposits within 2 minutes. 100 would last longer expodentially, but not enough to justify the cost vs wood. It would be cheaper for them to burn wood and easier too.

[VoltaicVolition]

Isn't freedom of speech limited by the "Offence principle," that refers to "hate speech," which what this essentially is?

What about the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? Burning a copy of a holy book of an entire culture for a hateful message does not exactly spell out "dignity" or "security."

[Cheesemonkeys24]

I didnt quite understand the whole thing to begin with. So he wants to burn some books. You shouldnt burn books cause they're a horrible source of fuel. Their paper burns to quickly and does not retain heat well at all. 1 Book would burn through all its carbon deposits within 2 minutes. 100 would last longer expodentially, but not enough to justify the cost vs wood. It would be cheaper for them to burn wood and easier too.

Do you have any idea how many bibles it takes to boil water for Spaghetti?:icon_lol:

[Smelly Vagoo]

did somebody say they have a burning question ? when my koran starts burning i find douching with summers eve or any mildly scented, feminine hygiene product to be helpful for relieving the problem.

[Sister Faith]

Isn't freedom of speech limited by the "Offence principle," that refers to "hate speech," which what this essentially is?

What constitutes hate speech? It is highly subjective depending on who you are and what you believe. Used to be that (by Cdn law) hate speech constituted anything that could harm another, such as advocating the practice of violence or discrimination against another. Now, the hate speech laws are being used against anyone who voices an opposing view or opinion. For instance, Ramond Villeneuve (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_Villeneuve) was never charged under hate speech laws while most holocaust deniers have been, simply for holding the erroneous and misinformed opinion that the holocaust never happened.

http://www.montrealmirror.com/ARCHIVES/1997/103097/cover.html

Villeneuve insists that the MLNQ has never made any direct, specific death threats against any particular individuals. He is, however, willing to admit many things that sound like death threats. "It's true that I said 'Canadians go home,'" he says. "And it's true that I said that partition (http://www.montrealmirror.com/ARCHIVES/1997/103097/cover2.html) leads to war, confrontation and bloodbath. And it's true that last year I said that if Quebec ever found itself in a particular situation--though I admit that I never adequately defined what that situation would be, which is all for the better--I said we'd burn their homes, their cars and their stores with Molotov cocktails. Molotov cocktails are wonderful, extraordinary instruments. They do more damage than a tank, and they're easier to transport from place to place. And there's not an army in the world that can stop the widespread sale of gasoline." What about the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? Burning a copy of a holy book of an entire culture for a hateful message does not exactly spell out "dignity" or "security."Imho, this pastor's motives spring not from hatred of muslims, but of fear of them. AND, as far as I'm concerned, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights can claim no moral weight until it is used for more pressing issues such as children's/womens rights and the rights of the poor, not the right of some pieces of paper with questionable history/fiction written on them!

[tagnostic]

When muslims
burn an American Flag
its freedom of expression
when Americans burn a qu-ran
its hate speech, go figure

[VoltaicVolition]

Imho, this pastor's motives spring not from hatred of muslims, but of fear of them. AND, as far as I'm concerned, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights can claim no moral weight until it is used for more pressing issues such as children's/womens rights and the rights of the poor, not the right of some pieces of paper with questionable history/fiction written on them!

Fair enough...I hope some day it does gain the moral weight that it should have.

For now though, I'm disappointed that freedom of speech is not responsibly used, by continuing to perpetuate a "Us vs. Them" scenario with radical actions, instead of stating a disagreement with sane and civil debate.

[Sister Faith]

Fair enough...I hope some day it does gain the moral weight that it should have.

Why should any book be included in the Declaration of Human Rights? It's just a book. Burning it does not obliterate the ideas in it. Besides, isn't the burning of holy books covered under Freedom of Religion? :shrug:

For now though, I'm disappointed that freedom of speech is not responsibly used, by continuing to perpetuate a "Us vs. Them" scenario with radical actions, instead of stating a disagreement with sane and civil debate.

I agree. Sane and civil would be nice, but that ain't going to happen when strong emotions are involved. :( We may not like the way some people choose to express their frustrations but to deny them the right to do so is hypocritical imho.

[tagnostic]

I'm against burning any book
I find the suppression of ideas
abhorrent regardless of whether
or not I agree with them
but I would not dispute
anyones right to express
themselves in that way

[Lotus]

So correct me if I am mistaken, but if they burn the Kuran....Can the muslims burn bibles? I mean that kind of goes both ways right? Or would that be considered an act of terrorism to burn the bible because its the bible....

[Dr-Shade]

I'd like to know what happened to "Turn the other Cheek"...

Being that it is taught by just about every religion in the world :icon_rolleyes:

[Cheesemonkeys24]

I'd like to know what happened to "Turn the other Cheek"...

Being that it is taught by just about every religion in the world :icon_rolleyes:

It never existed....

[Dr-Shade]

Oh yea.... i forgot that for a moment there :icon_rolleyes:

[Eliomann]

**And so, hate leads to hate...it's reciprocal...for I find that to be part of our self-destructing nature...
Fueled by religion, irrationalism takes power and leads them all into an endless cirle of hatred...I wonder, when will all this end...U.U

[VoltaicVolition]

Why should any book be included in the Declaration of Human Rights? It's just a book. Burning it does not obliterate the ideas in it. Besides, isn't the burning of holy books covered under Freedom of Religion? :shrug:

I have to question then..How are you interpreting this as speech if it is merely an action?
I figured the action meant something along the lines "I feel that the religion that is related with this book, (thus insulting the religion's practitioners,) should disintegrate such as this book is burning" or even something like "Muslims are going to hell!"

I can't think of any interpretation of this that isn't aggressive and immature.

It's not like the pastor ran out of firewood.



I agree. Sane and civil would be nice, but that ain't going to happen when strong emotions are involved. :( We may not like the way some people choose to express their frustrations but to deny them the right to do so is hypocritical imho.
I believe that the context of freedom of speech is about unbarring any subject to be debated. As in, no taboos. To apply "inalienable human rights" of respect, would not take away the freedom in this regard.

Would you not find it wholly absurd if I wanted to express that I like to have syrup on my pancakes by fanatically and aggressively invalidating the choices of others to have pancakes without syrup, or with some other type of topping, by calling them insulting names or slurs, by launching anti syrupless campaigns and propaganda, and involving the "secular" government by fiercely demanding laws be put in place for pancakes to always have syrup on them, because I absolutely cannot stand non-conformity to my way of life (regarding pancakes) even though the non-syrup havers are not at all forcing me to eat pancakes without syrup, and most of the time I would not even be witnessing them eating their syrupless pancakes? What if I go further in this by manufacturing "legitimate" reasons why those who would eat pancakes without syrup are a danger to society, and are evil and twisted, in order to pressure and influence the masses through all sorts of fallacious appeals, to pass such ridiculous laws that take away freedom (or maintain unequal rights)?

Free speech makes it acceptable and reasonable to do this? Really?

[tagnostic]

Voltaic,

my definition of freedom of speech
is also inclusive of freedom of action
within specific limits
those being that all thoughts and actions
are allowed that do not impede or physically harm
anyone else in their freedom of speech or action
the problem arises only when someone elses
world view includes their right to impede
my physical, verbal or any other form of expression
because it differs from theirs

freedom is only freedom when you can defend it
regardless of who's it is
and what they are advocating

[OfficerFriendly]

freedom is only freedom when you can defend it
regardless of who's it is
and what they are advocating

I love it, Mr Tag!

[VoltaicVolition]

Voltaic,

my definition of freedom of speech
is also inclusive of freedom of action
within specific limits
those being that all thoughts and actions
are allowed that do not impede or physically harm
anyone else in their freedom of speech or action
the problem arises only when someone elses
world view includes their right to impede
my physical, verbal or any other form of expression
because it differs from theirs

freedom is only freedom when you can defend it
regardless of who's it is
and what they are advocating

Let me tell you about a friend I once had,
he was loud, opinionated....ignorant.

The "discussions" I had with him could more accurately be described as his "conjecture time," as anything I would bring up and start to say would immediately not be conveyed properly, and be fragmented and incomplete, because he would take it upon himself to interrupt, because he's clearly psychic, and proceed to lay the smack down on a straw man. He'd derail the topic so far and be so unwaveringly confident, that reasoning would be futile...if such reasoning would even go uninterrupted in the face of such egotism.

If we put free speech into the scope of an interpersonal interaction such as this, we'd see that he is not actually 'impeding' my ability to speak. I could very well continue talking, despite the unconstructiveness of neither of us comprehending the other.
Is a person talking over another a form of censorship perhaps?
Not really, the words are all there, so a trained ear from a proposed third party would be able to distinguish the speech.

I'm at a loss then, of why everyone does not adopt these effective "interrupt speech" and "keep speaking when interrupted" techniques so that we can have a big self-validated cacophony orchestra of free speech.

If we observe a public speech, is there not an expectation of civility, that the speaker should be the one speaking, and the audience be reasonably silent and respectful?
Where exactly did this rule come from? Apparently not from "inalienable" human rights or common decency and respect, as if it were the case, all of such things would then be applied, and there would be an expectation for people to not express themselves in a way of a stark raving mad lunatic or spew an unlimited amount of hatred towards fellow humans.

Are we trying to have our cake and eat it too? Hypocritical. But that seems to be the norm in this society.

[tagnostic]

if you don't like what
someone is saying
you have the right
to not listen

if you don't like someones
book,
you have the right to not
read it

if you don't like someones
visual or graphic depictions
you have the right not to look

being louder doesn't make you
anymore right
it makes you annoying
and less likely to be taken seriously

[edit: the term 'you' in this post is not directed at any individual, it is a generic term for all sentient beings[/clarification]]

as long as we're on the subject
why is any attack on a Muslim
a hate crime?
but a Muslim attacking anyone
for not having the same beliefs
is barely a crime?

[VoltaicVolition]

if you don't like what
someone is saying
you have the right
to not listen

if you don't like someones
book,
you have the right to not
read it

if you don't like someones
visual or graphic depictions
you have the right not to look

being louder doesn't make you
anymore right
it makes you annoying
and less likely to be taken seriously


as long as we're on the subject
why is any attack on a Muslim
a hate crime?
but a Muslim attacking anyone
for not having the same beliefs
is barely a crime?


Oh, so I have the right to spend every waking moment in a blindfold and have in earplugs so that I don't chance anything that I may disagree with, or news of such things, to coming in contact of my senses!

How productive, insightful and childish of a proposition you have made there tagnostic!

If you haven't figured it out, I can't exactly just magically avoid things that "offend" me, because in order to know that it is offensive to me, I would have to have observed and comprehended it in the first place.

Furthermore, these issues are not trivial, and I am not such a coward that you for some reason are suggesting that I should be, to just stick my head in a hole and pretend everything is just fine, or delude myself to think that these things to be so simply avoided.

I placed here thoughts open to discussion that I had hoped that would be contemplated upon intellectually, yet what you have to give me is that I'm "loud" and "annoying?" If this is your idea of discussion, then that idea is just as naive as your affirmation that the solution to the issue is ignorance.
Have you ever heard of AD HOMINEM? Being "loud" (Being thorough in a point is "loud?") in the context of which you have deemed "loud" to be ("wordy" I would guess), does not inherently relate to "annoyance" or "likelyhood to be taken seriously" in any meaningful way outside of your bizarre biases.
If lengthy pieces of writing such as peer-reviewed scientific journals were widely regarded as "annoyances" and were "less likely to be taken seriously," then you might have had a point, even if it was based on cultural practices or something, rather than the objective relativity of concepts in which you have presented this cause-effect with your manner of speech.
But guess what the truth is?

Are you nitpicking about my semantics as well? It might not be fully technically operating as a 'hate crime' but you would have to see that the action is brimming with hatred, unless of course you were using your own advice on the matter and exercising your very useful right to neglect to be aware of what goes on around you.

Be aware if you're just going to continue down this road of matter-of-fact non-solutions that don't at all contemplate the challenges presented with my debate, and would continue in borderline name-calling, I would rather not talk to you at all.

Your failure to give any reasonable fallacy-free counter-argument is what would make you less likely to be taken seriously. And this is not ad hominem; these things actually relate!

[OfficerFriendly]

:tinfoilhat:
lol found one over here!

[VoltaicVolition]

:tinfoilhat:
lol found one over here!

Found what?

[VoltaicVolition]

It appears you are making a particularly unfriendly and juvenile gesture, "OfficerFriendly." I should have expected this.

You and your community have clearly shown where your interests lie when you react to a standard of intellectual discussion in such mannerisms.

By all means, soak up in your pride of holding a generic view of a particular issue, and let that pride float your condescending pedestal ever higher.
Why justify and explain your views when you can just berate people, right?
Why come up with a counterpoint or expose possible errors in reasoning when you can just :tinfoilhat: and "lol" about it, right?

Well you've successfully alienated me from your community, and I no longer have anything good to say about this place and its residents.

You would think that I would be disappointed come to find out that the few people here weren't as wise as it was implied to be.
Actually, I pity you. I pity that ignorance, ostentatiousness, and social ineptitude that is bound to cause you more trouble in life than simply warding off folks from what could have been a decent community. I suspect that you may have already pushed away some friends and family..
All for the sake of a "lol" or stuck-up pride in unquestioning defense of particular beliefs...or some other asinine reason.


I won't be coming back, trolls.

My only regret is that I won't get to see you eventually fall off your skyborne pedestals.

[tagnostic]

Oh, so I have the right to spend every waking moment in a blindfold and have in earplugs so that I don't chance anything that I may disagree with, or news of such things, to coming in contact of my senses!

no, it means you have the right to walk away

How productive, insightful and childish of a proposition you have made there tagnostic!

If you haven't figured it out, I can't exactly just magically avoid things that "offend" me, because in order to know that it is offensive to me, I would have to have observed and comprehended it in the first place.after which you have the right to avoid an argument by walking away or nodding your head sagely


Furthermore, these issues are not trivial, and I am not such a coward that you for some reason are suggesting that I should be, to just stick my head in a hole and pretend everything is just fine, or delude myself to think that these things to be so simply avoided.who said they were trivial?
and no one said to stick your head in the sand
but recognize when disputation is a waste of time


I placed here thoughts open to discussion that I had hoped that would be contemplated upon intellectually, yet what you have to give me is that I'm "loud" and "annoying?" If this is your idea of discussion, then that idea is just as naive as your affirmation that the solution to the issue is ignorance.
I never said it was directed at you specifically
you took it that way
I used it in a generic sense
I'm terribly sorry if you were offended
and thought it was directed that way
if I do wish to make a specific statement
regarding you personally, rest assured
you will know it

Have you ever heard of AD HOMINEM?
yes I'm quite familiar with the term

Being "loud" (Being thorough in a point is "loud?") in the context of which you have deemed "loud" to be ("wordy" I would guess), does not inherently relate to "annoyance" or "likelyhood to be taken seriously" in any meaningful way outside of your bizarre biases.if you continue to belabour a point
knowing that the other is not to be convinced
your wasting time,
to reiterate, being louder will not convince them
neither will being repetitive,
let it go

If lengthy pieces of writing such as peer-reviewed scientific journals were widely regarded as "annoyances" and were "less likely to be taken seriously," then you might have had a point, even if it was based on cultural practices or something, rather than the objective relativity of concepts in which you have presented this cause-effect with your manner of speech. pursuant to what?
ie: where did this come from?

But guess what the truth is?

I'll bite,
what is it?

Are you nitpicking about my semantics as well? It might not be fully technically operating as a 'hate crime' but you would have to see that the action is brimming with hatred, unless of course you were using your own advice on the matter and exercising your very useful right to neglect to be aware of what goes on around you.could you elaborate?
not arguing semantics
i'm arguing the application of specific terms
in their specific social connotations

Be aware if you're just going to continue down this road of matter-of-fact non-solutions that don't at all contemplate the challenges presented with my debate, and would continue in borderline name-calling,what good are solutions
if they are not 'matter of fact'
and implifyable?

I would rather not talk to you at all. which is your perogative
which you have failed to implement
by this exhaustive post to get to that
statement


Your failure to give any reasonable fallacy-free counter-argument is what would make you less likely to be taken seriously. And this is not ad hominem; these things actually relate!where precisely is the fallacy?
and it wasn't an argument
it was a statement of my beliefs
at no point did I say that you
had to proscribe, adhere or agree with them

[OfficerFriendly]

It appears you are making a particularly unfriendly and juvenile gesture, "OfficerFriendly." I should have expected this.

You and your community have clearly shown where your interests lie when you react to a standard of intellectual discussion in such mannerisms.

By all means, soak up in your pride of holding a generic view of a particular issue, and let that pride float your condescending pedestal ever higher.
Why justify and explain your views when you can just berate people, right?
Why come up with a counterpoint or expose possible errors in reasoning when you can just :tinfoilhat: and "lol" about it, right?

Well you've successfully alienated me from your community, and I no longer have anything good to say about this place and its residents.

You would think that I would be disappointed come to find out that the few people here weren't as wise as it was implied to be.
Actually, I pity you. I pity that ignorance, ostentatiousness, and social ineptitude that is bound to cause you more trouble in life than simply warding off folks from what could have been a decent community. I suspect that you may have already pushed away some friends and family..
All for the sake of a "lol" or stuck-up pride in unquestioning defense of particular beliefs...or some other asinine reason.


I won't be coming back, trolls.

My only regret is that I won't get to see you eventually fall off your skyborne pedestals.

I'm going to submit your letter to the artifact of research of what a lonely person would write. Then if I can have your address my good sir, we can come over and remove anything sharp. We just dont want anyone hurt around here because of what we post over teh intranez. :plaugh:

[VoltaicVolition]

no, it means you have the right to walk away
after which you have the right to avoid an argument by walking away or nodding your head sagely

who said they were trivial?
and no one said to stick your head in the sand
but recognize when disputation is a waste of time

I never said it was directed at you specifically
you took it that way
I used it in a generic sense
I'm terribly sorry if you were offended
and thought it was directed that way
if I do wish to make a specific statement
regarding you personally, rest assured
you will know it
yes I'm quite familiar with the term
if you continue to belabour a point
knowing that the other is not to be convinced
your wasting time,
to reiterate, being louder will not convince them
neither will being repetitive,
let it go
pursuant to what?
ie: where did this come from?


I'll bite,
what is it?
could you elaborate?
not arguing semantics
i'm arguing the application of specific terms
in their specific social connotations
what good are solutions
if they are not 'matter of fact'
and implifyable?
which is your perogative
which you have failed to implement
by this exhaustive post to get to that
statement

where precisely is the fallacy?
and it wasn't an argument
it was a statement of my beliefs
at no point did I say that you
had to proscribe, adhere or agree with them

Ok, I have placed the troll on my ignore list, but I'm confused now, your PM suggests that I should take your post apart, but there isn't anything to really take apart after this tangent where you responded to my response to you addressing me and instigating a discussion..

You tell me I have a right to not listen, not read, not etc.., I misinterpreted it at first, but now you've explained that it was just you telling me something that is common sense, I know I can choose not to let something get a rise out of me more than some initial reactions. Such as how I've now blocked the troll. But our string of replies started with you addressing me, sharing your view of the ideal of freedom of speech and action and not apparently seeing anything that could go wrong or be wrong about it.
This triggered an assumption on my end that you wanted to have a discussion, where you would pay some consideration to points I put out where things may not be so simple.

I notice now that I did use "loud" to describe the interrupter, was that what you were referring to with the figurative "you?"
I suppose I may come off aggressive anyhow, because I have strong feelings, so I'll try to have a "quieter" writing style.

I'm more than willing to consider the counter points, had you provided any.
Instead, I get this thing, now explained to be that I should recognize when a disputation is a waste of time, which seems wholly contradictory to intentions you placed out by addressing me to introduce a discussion with you. Unless this was figurative as well? :shrug:

We can try this again if you'd like, tell me what you feel is going on, when people have inhibitions out of respect in some aspects of culture, yet all that respect disappears in other aspects, and it seems to be completely fine and protected by our rights?
How does one "walk away" from wide-spread news with cultural impacts?

[tagnostic]

Ok, I have placed the troll on my ignore list, but I'm confused now, your PM suggests that I should take your post apart, but there isn't anything to really take apart after this tangent where you responded to my response to you addressing me and instigating a discussion..

there is always room for discussion
and no one is always right
therefore there is always room
to point out discrepencies
agreement is not always the desired result
the ability to look beyond your own viewpoint is
whether that viewpoint changes or not is irrelevant

You tell me I have a right to not listen, not read, not etc.., I misinterpreted it at first, but now you've explained that it was just you telling me something that is common sense, I know I can choose not to let something get a rise out of me more than some initial reactions. Such as how I've now blocked the troll. But our string of replies started with you addressing me, sharing your view of the ideal of freedom of speech and action and not apparently seeing anything that could go wrong or be wrong about it.
This triggered an assumption on my end that you wanted to have a discussion, where you would pay some consideration to points I put out where things may not be so simple.

all i ever want is discussion,
which to me implies difference of opinion
if everyone agreed, discussion would be unnecessary
but it was my fault for not being clear on nouns/pronouns
i do try not to make things personal or engage in ad hominem attacks
(when i do, and i do, it is blatantly obvious, i am human and have as@@ole potential like everyone)

feel free, we encourage disagreement,
but recognize that no one here (esp me) will take any statement as gospel
its opinion, as are ours,
if you want to state a fact, show citations,
wiki anything doesn't count, nor do any "holy" books that require faith, any news sources must be backed up by others, not just one,
as in everything I post this is Just My Humble Opinion,
i do not expect or would tolerate anyone who would accept anything on my say so
that would be a kool aid drinker, I reject all such,
argue,
dispute
be yourself
right, wrong or indifferent
its the only thing nobody can take,
your opinion/version of reality


I notice now that I did use "loud" to describe the interrupter, was that what you were referring to with the figurative "you?"
I suppose I may come off aggressive anyhow, because I have strong feelings, so I'll try to have a "quieter" writing style.

hehehehehe
don't change
just don't get uptight
when people disagree
thats the whole object to a discussion
disagreement

in theory its
thesis
antithesis
synthesis
in reality
synthesis is rarely if ever acheived
as long as your cool with your reality
i'm cool with mine

I'm more than willing to consider the counter points, had you provided any.
Instead, I get this thing, now explained to be that I should recognize when a disputation is a waste of time, which seems wholly contradictory to intentions you placed out by addressing me to introduce a discussion with you. Unless this was figurative as well? :shrug:

my bad
I wasn't clear
I was referring to you story of your friend, who kept talking louder
I want and expect you to expand and continue your viewpoints here
you may not convince anyone, but continue
I was talking about IRL confrontations where some people have the
mistaken impression that they can shout someone else down
the only solution I have found is to ignore that type of person

by all means,
tell me I'm wrong and how
keeps me from getting to pompous
(which I am prone to, its the only way to deal with Fingus)

We can try this again if you'd like, tell me what you feel is going on, when people have inhibitions out of respect in some aspects of culture, yet all that respect disappears in other aspects, and it seems to be completely fine and protected by our rights?
How does one "walk away" from wide-spread news with cultural impacts?

wow,
ok,
lets take it from the top
on this forum
i'm pretty much the most conservative
oldest (the older 2 won't admit it)
the only one who has done military service
and around here where the avg IQ is genius
I'm below avg

I think that political correctness is part of the dumbing down of America
if your pandering to the avg IQ you obviously have to appeal to the idiots
to make any headway, if you reward stupidity, laziness and any lack of
initiative you are contributing to the downward slide.
hmmm
just a sec (https://sites.google.com/site/wrongpolitics/)
hows this for my humble right of Reagan opinion?

feel free to disagree
when you don't
i'll assume you drank the kool aid

proud to meet ya

tag

[sam the moderately wize]

Let's see if I can create some clarity on the issue of free speech ect. (no need to get too sidetracked). I suspect that if things are stated transparently then we will find some measure of agreement.

John Stuart Mill (who I hope we can agree generally has fairly sensible ideas) says in On Liberty that

"An opinion that corn dealers are starvers of the poor, or that private property is robbery, ought to be unmolested when simply circulated through the press, but may justly incur punishment when delivered orally to an excited mob assembled before the house of a corn dealer, or when handed about among the same mob in the form of a placard."

The distinction here is, I think, based on the principle that we should attempt to maximise individual freedom without compromising the freedom of others. If Terry Jones expects that burning the Koran will lead directly to an increased number of crimes by or against muslims, or intends to promote such crime by his actions, he shares some measure of responsibility for those crimes.

If he intends this Koran-burning as a symbolic gesture and does not want to tip people over the edge and into violence and does not expect that he will do so, he is merely exercising his right to freedom of expression.

The real question is whether he really does expect that his actions will have no ill effects of this kind, or if he is doing it in order to promote violence between the two sides. If the first, people should try to dissuade him, but shouldn't force him to stop. If the second, the state should stop him.

Also, don't go away VV! Not all of us are trolls, we need more people who try to discuss things properly.

[OfficerFriendly]

lol I'm not worried about it. I merely flagged Mr Tuscan un-gluing upon Tag. All of the sudden I get a flurry of insults. I wonder why......................:icon_razz:

[tagnostic]

heheheh
OF
its because your not a sweet wonderful person like me
when are you coming by for a beer and a chess game?
slacker, you only want to play when i'm intoxicated
i call foul, next time we'll play at the 'cat and i'll have
the bouncer (one of the chicks) hold your hands behind
your back, keep you drunk and distracted and i'll get to
win for a change

[OfficerFriendly]

hehe you cant blame me but yeah going to the cat sounds like plan. Maybe after work Friday? I'll have to get with the real boss.

[tagnostic]

hehehehe
the cat on Friday,
I'll be there between 4-6?
if i'm not at the bar
i'll be in the pit

[OfficerFriendly]

real boss gave the OK. I'll likely roll in there after 5pm

[tagnostic]

hehehehe
I'll be in the pit

[VoltaicVolition]

the only solution I have found is to ignore that type of person


Now that I understand, I think we're actually alike in this regard than what it seemed. That's what I wound up doing, as I implied the person I was speaking about was no longer a friend as he had no interest in getting along with a mutual respect to listen as he was expecting me to listen.

So I've had my own kool-aid here, but thanks for the offer!

Now, whats kind of different is that is discussion is made a mockery of in public view commonly, increasingly frequent the more controversial a topic is.

http://www.tmz.com/2010/10/14/the-view-bill-oreilly-whoopi-goldberg-joy-behar-barbara-walters/

I know the WBC are con-artists but this still happened:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6UMP3AK5jwo

If the purpose of interviews and such are to showcase the for/against arguments, Q&A, and information for the audience to contemplate upon, how does a vocal power struggle during these things help anyone? Rather than being presented with unadulterated viewpoints and refutations, we just get to see people act on impulses to turn debates into bitch-fests.

If anything, because people shown on television tend to be perceived with an inflated worth of respectability, what this does is pass social cues to the kool-aid drinkers in the audience like "This is what I should do if I strongly oppose a spoken idea" and voila, more self-validating drama-exerting idiots.

Nobody's forced to endure these, yes, but cultural impact from them is a bit less ignorable.



The distinction here is, I think, based on the principle that we should attempt to maximise individual freedom without compromising the freedom of others. If Terry Jones expects that burning the Koran will lead directly to an increased number of crimes by or against muslims, or intends to promote such crime by his actions, he shares some measure of responsibility for those crimes.

If he intends this Koran-burning as a symbolic gesture and does not want to tip people over the edge and into violence and does not expect that he will do so, he is merely exercising his right to freedom of expression.

The real question is whether he really does expect that his actions will have no ill effects of this kind, or if he is doing it in order to promote violence between the two sides. If the first, people should try to dissuade him, but shouldn't force him to stop. If the second, the state should stop him.


Why should accountability only apply to his intentions and expectations and not the actual consequences had he done it (if the mention of it hasn't already caused effects)? Someone in a "respectable" position would realize he is influential, and more so when he knows he can create publicity in such a manner.

He would have to be incredibly negligent to not see he is promoting (appealing to the Christians) religious intolerance (in a country with freedom of religion no less), that would have a racist correlation overtone in the view of many of the ignorant buffoons we have. Along with with an implication that a religion should be hated because of the religious extremists that "represent" it. That's plenty of ill effect even if it doesn't result in violence directly, and without the action actually taking place.

[OfficerFriendly]

Freedom of expression is important for it promotes the discovery for and respect of the truth. The truth is sufficiently important that restrictions on freedom are legitimate if only the prohibited expression plays no reasonable role in critical inquiry. It follows from this that even expression that significantly harms others should not be prohibited if it plays a reasonable role in critical inquiry.

/thread

[OfficerFriendly]

Missed ya there, Tag. Hope this finds you Ok

[VoltaicVolition]

Freedom of expression is important for it promotes the discovery for and respect of the truth. The truth is sufficiently important that restrictions on freedom are legitimate if only the prohibited expression plays no reasonable role in critical inquiry. It follows from this that even expression that significantly harms others should not be prohibited if it plays a reasonable role in critical inquiry.

/thread

If that were at all true, Mr. Troll, the idea that "Humans don't have gnosis" would have been promoted and discovered by many who would have thought otherwise. But "gnostic" feelings associated with religion are as prominent and encouraged as ever. It really disrespects truth (in that it should be simple to tell that no experience or feeling can be verified to be gnosis by the sheer amounts of possible explanations) and has little critical value. (gives psychoanalysts something I guess)

And then..why were many truths behind 9/11 itself not promoted or respected? Why was the promoted news so cherry-picked and distorted, if truth is our highest priority?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8182697765360042032#

Despite that you felt confidently self-validated enough to "/thread," things aren't that easy.

[OfficerFriendly]

My statement is still solid.

Freedom of expression is important for it promotes the discovery for and respect of the truth. The truth is sufficiently important that restrictions on freedom are legitimate if only the prohibited expression plays no reasonable role in critical inquiry. It follows from this that even expression that significantly harms others should not be prohibited if it plays a reasonable role in critical inquiry.

/thread

I'm afraid VV's response doesn't challenge this fact but rather tries to lead astray from its truth. The validity of my statement can still be tested however. Anyone else want to give it a try?

Voltaic,
freedom is only freedom when you can defend it
regardless of who's it is
and what they are advocating
Thank you, Tag. These words hold supreme.

[sam the moderately wize]

Why should accountability only apply to his intentions and expectations and not the actual consequences had he done it (if the mention of it hasn't already caused effects)? Someone in a "respectable" position would realize he is influential, and more so when he knows he can create publicity in such a manner.

He would have to be incredibly negligent to not see he is promoting (appealing to the Christians) religious intolerance (in a country with freedom of religion no less), that would have a racist correlation overtone in the view of many of the ignorant buffoons we have. Along with with an implication that a religion should be hated because of the religious extremists that "represent" it. That's plenty of ill effect even if it doesn't result in violence directly, and without the action actually taking place.

1) He would have to be incredibly stupid or ignorant to not realise that what he was doing would increase religious tension and possibly examples of extremism, but if you genuinely are Eccles from The Goon Show, then when you do something incredibly stupid or ignorant, the action isn't worthy of moral blame, because you genuinely thought that you were being good at the time.

2) Believing that a particular religion should be hated is a viewpoint that ought to be heard and considered, because there is a very small chance that he might be right. I don't think he is, but if we don't keep looking at our morality from every possible direction and making sure it's sound from the bottom on up, and instead just refused to hear any views that did not correlate with our own and forbade people from giving voice to them, we are no better than the fundies themselves. The validity of our own views is created by this constant process of questioning and editing, and any barrier to the expression of opinions that contribute to this task can only harm us as moral beings.

[tagnostic]

Now, whats kind of different is that is discussion is made a mockery of in public view commonly, increasingly frequent the more controversial a topic is.

in any disagreement where synthesis
can't be reached
mockery is the 1st stage
violence is the second
I prefer mockery

If the purpose of interviews and such are to showcase the for/against arguments, Q&A, and information for the audience to contemplate upon, how does a vocal power struggle during these things help anyone? Rather than being presented with unadulterated viewpoints and refutations, we just get to see people act on impulses to turn debates into bitch-fests.

that is not the purpose
ratings and the hosts opinions are
if you want unadulterated opinions
turn off the idiot box and talk to people
who don't get paid by how many morons
believe their commercials

If anything, because people shown on television tend to be perceived with an inflated worth of respectability, what this does is pass social cues to the kool-aid drinkers in the audience like "This is what I should do if I strongly oppose a spoken idea" and voila, more self-validating drama-exerting idiots.

if the average IQ is 100
and the ones that can think for themselves is over that
guess which percentage is under and where they get
their information (network television is proof of the dumbing down of civilisation)

Nobody's forced to endure these, yes, but cultural impact from them is a bit less ignorable.

yet millions choose it
its an opiate
just cheaper



[
Why should accountability only apply to his intentions and expectations and not the actual consequences had he done it (if the mention of it hasn't already caused effects)? Someone in a "respectable" position would realize he is influential, and more so when he knows he can create publicity in such a manner.

dunno where you going with that or what the point is

He would have to be incredibly negligent to not see he is promoting (appealing to the Christians) religious intolerance (in a country with freedom of religion no less), that would have a racist correlation overtone in the view of many of the ignorant buffoons we have.

ya lost me on that
religous intolerance?
seems to apply only to
extremists of any religon
where exactly is the racial correlation?
what race? (mines 1/8 mile oval on 750 hd)
ignorant buffoons last time i checked
knew no racial or religous bounds

Along with with an implication that a religion should be hated because of the religious extremists that "represent" it. That's plenty of ill effect even if it doesn't result in violence directly, and without the action actually taking place.

violence is the fault of the violent
you can't blame it on someone elses words
you have the choice to ignore the words
blaming your actions on them does not excuse you
if you profess to be sentient then you are responsible
for your actions, if at any point you blame someone else
your a kool-aid drinker who has no right to claim 'humanity'


(sorry OF, due to circumstances, really missed it, better now)

[Sister Faith]

(in a country with freedom of religion no less),

Freedom of religion means you are free to practice any religion of your choice. It does not mean that your choice is free from criticism, opposition or even ridicule.

I understand your point about people being held accountable for the consequences of their actions/words and I agree with you about influential people using that power more wisely but EVERY consequence cannot be foreseen.

What if your carefully thought out, respectfully worded, innocently given opinion turned some fanatic/lunatic suicidal? Should you be held accountable for something you could not have reasonably foreseen? If that were the case then there would never be any discussion because someone somewhere would take offence at something or take something completely out of context and run with it.
There would never be ANY opinions heard (for or against). May as well be living in China. :(

[tagnostic]

Freedom of religion means you are free to practice any religion of your choice. It does not mean that your choice is free from criticism, opposition or even ridicule.

Sis, you be the bomb.

I understand your point about people being held accountable for the consequences of their actions/words and I agree with you about influential people using that power more wisely but EVERY consequence cannot be foreseen.

people being accountable
gets skipped alot

What if your carefully thought out, respectfully worded, innocently given opinion turned some fanatic/lunatic suicidal?

start with an idiot
then give him bad
ideas, guess what
happens:icon_eek:

Should you be held accountable for something you could not have reasonably foreseen? If that were the case then there would never be any discussion because someone somewhere would take offence at something or take something completely out of context and run with it.
There would never be ANY opinions heard (for or against). May as well be living in China. :(

rofl

love and rockets Sis

[VoltaicVolition]

My statement is still solid.

I'm afraid VV's response doesn't challenge this fact but rather tries to lead astray from its truth. The validity of my statement can still be tested however. Anyone else want to give it a try?


Thank you, Tag. These words hold supreme.
I'm afraid OF's response indicates he has abysmally poor reading comprehension skills or is a very see-through troll.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ChewbaccaDefense

1) He would have to be incredibly stupid or ignorant to not realise that what he was doing would increase religious tension and possibly examples of extremism, but if you genuinely are Eccles from The Goon Show, then when you do something incredibly stupid or ignorant, the action isn't worthy of moral blame, because you genuinely thought that you were being good at the time.

2) Believing that a particular religion should be hated is a viewpoint that ought to be heard and considered, because there is a very small chance that he might be right. I don't think he is, but if we don't keep looking at our morality from every possible direction and making sure it's sound from the bottom on up, and instead just refused to hear any views that did not correlate with our own and forbade people from giving voice to them, we are no better than the fundies themselves. The validity of our own views is created by this constant process of questioning and editing, and any barrier to the expression of opinions that contribute to this task can only harm us as moral beings.

I think you might misunderstand me, of course we shouldn't censor oppositional views, but without a standard of maturity for expressing anything, it makes it unnecessarily difficult to achieve progress with constructive deliberation. Theres too many people that sort of..ignore counterpoints in a display of stubbornness and spout their spoon-fed ideals in unconstructive manners. Theres a difference between passion and foaming at the mouth. It does show passion if one were devoted enough to state a controversial opinion in the way like "I believe such and such because of reasons X, Y and Z.." and have the intellectual status to acknowledge something through discussion like "It appears I may have been incorrect on reason X" or "But you've overlooked some other ramifications about reason X" instead of "NUH UH!! UR JUST PLAYING A TRICK. NO ONE WILL STOP ME FROM SPEAKING THE TRUTH!"
Yet, the more immaturity succeeds in giving the impression that they get their way like that, simply because they irritate others enough to discontinue talking to a brick wall, the more it picks up and gets adopted by sheeple. Monkey see, monkey do. Society is regressing, not advancing.
I'm not saying freedom of speech causes that, I'm saying overgrown children who misuse it are.



if the average IQ is 100
and the ones that can think for themselves is over that
guess which percentage is under and where they get
their information (network television is proof of the dumbing down of civilisation)


That suggests that many are prone to manipulation and influence. Yet you say in the same message that individuals are accountable for their own actions.
You're sort of confusing me again :shrug:

Looks like there's a double standard going on, we promote personal choices and freedom, yet many go out of their way to skew culture to support their social stigmas, imploring many to put on their best faces of disapproval and ready their free-speech-berative-condescension-rays for firing from their army of high horses against those who are exercising their freedom in such a way that does not conform, armed only with their piddly please-respect-me-as-a-fellow-human-being-BB-guns.


Freedom of religion means you are free to practice any religion of your choice. It does not mean that your choice is free from criticism, opposition or even ridicule.

I understand your point about people being held accountable for the consequences of their actions/words and I agree with you about influential people using that power more wisely but EVERY consequence cannot be foreseen.

What if your carefully thought out, respectfully worded, innocently given opinion turned some fanatic/lunatic suicidal? Should you be held accountable for something you could not have reasonably foreseen? If that were the case then there would never be any discussion because someone somewhere would take offence at something or take something completely out of context and run with it.
There would never be ANY opinions heard (for or against). May as well be living in China. :(

It's a solid point but your example kind of dips into the absurd...
Thing is, mature and organized conveying of ideas is more productive, progressive and civilized, than the flailing about of radical actions and stirring controversy and aggressive attitudes, even if somehow the civilized versions of the same things would create an equivalent degree of consequences.

[OfficerFriendly]

Son, you just like to argue. Maybe people are slow to learn this but you aren't interested in anything else but to get off on madness. OK, maybe I am mistaking. Maybe you really disagree with me and are making a serious challenge to my statement.

I just read your short but sweet reply to me. Not impressed. An introduction to your mighty words, perhaps? They aren't coherent but maybe if I read on, your words will make sense. Alright, I'll bite. Let's just randomly click one of your links.

Hmmm Chewbacca? So your counterpoint to my statement is chewy? /guffaw
Now we know who's been sawing out cow anuses. Pew! Pew! Watch out for the make believe laser beams! Chewy Confirmed
:tinfoilhat:
Good Game

[Will.]

I would dually like to note, that if the question burns, you may want to go get cheque'd.

[tagnostic]

rofl
its not the question
its the answer thats
hard to swallow
if it burns after that
use the bidet and
lay off the jalapeno's

[tagnostic]

I think you might misunderstand me, of course we shouldn't censor oppositional views, but without a standard of maturity for expressing anything, it makes it unnecessarily difficult to achieve progress with constructive deliberation.

who gets to define that standard?
isn't defining it in and of itself a form of censorship?

Theres too many people that sort of..ignore counterpoints in a display of stubbornness and spout their spoon-fed ideals in unconstructive manners. Theres a difference between passion and foaming at the mouth.

yes, but its a matter of perspective
and a judgement call, its a qualitative opinion
not a quantitative value

It does show passion if one were devoted enough to state a controversial opinion in the way like "I believe such and such because of reasons X, Y and Z.." and have the intellectual status to acknowledge something through discussion like "It appears I may have been incorrect on reason X" or "But you've overlooked some other ramifications about reason X" instead of "NUH UH!! UR JUST PLAYING A TRICK. NO ONE WILL STOP ME FROM SPEAKING THE TRUTH!"

is this in reference to something specific?
or a generic comment regarding those who
disagree with you?


Yet, the more immaturity succeeds in giving the impression that they get their way like that, simply because they irritate others enough to discontinue talking to a brick wall, the more it picks up and gets adopted by sheeple. Monkey see, monkey do. Society is regressing, not advancing.

won't argue with that
everytime i see network television
i'm convinced that devolution is happening

I'm not saying freedom of speech causes that, I'm saying overgrown children who misuse it are.

freedom of speech cannot be misused
believing it mindlessly is a self solving problem




That suggests that many are prone to manipulation and influence. Yet you say in the same message that individuals are accountable for their own actions.
You're sort of confusing me again :shrug:

I don't see the contradiction
many are prone to manipulation and influence
this does not in any way exempt them from accountablility

a case in point would be the manson followers
stupid yes, accountable Hell Yes

Looks like there's a double standard going on, we promote personal choices and freedom, yet many go out of their way to skew culture to support their social stigmas, imploring many to put on their best faces of disapproval and ready their free-speech-berative-condescension-rays for firing from their army of high horses against those who are exercising their freedom in such a way that does not conform, armed only with their piddly please-respect-me-as-a-fellow-human-being-BB-guns.

personal choice and freedom
is also the right to be wrong
and told so by others who
differ in opinion
(the condescension is just an added bonus)




It's a solid point but your example kind of dips into the absurd...
Thing is, mature and organized conveying of ideas is more productive, progressive and civilized, than the flailing about of radical actions and stirring controversy and aggressive attitudes, even if somehow the civilized versions of the same things would create an equivalent degree of consequences.

what is radical/controversial about freedom of speech/thought?
as long as it doesn't physically affect anyone else's rights to
those same freedoms?

[OfficerFriendly]

(sorry OF, due to circumstances, really missed it, better now)

It would have been a better time with you but I did enjoy myself. A woman flashed her tatas and the lady in the cage helped me lose $7. lol its all good.

[Will.]

any dude who calls em tata's is undeniably gay in some way...

[OfficerFriendly]

LOL THX WILL

[sam the moderately wize]

I think you might misunderstand me, of course we shouldn't censor oppositional views, but without a standard of maturity for expressing anything, it makes it unnecessarily difficult to achieve progress with constructive deliberation. Theres too many people that sort of..ignore counterpoints in a display of stubbornness and spout their spoon-fed ideals in unconstructive manners. Theres a difference between passion and foaming at the mouth. It does show passion if one were devoted enough to state a controversial opinion in the way like "I believe such and such because of reasons X, Y and Z.." and have the intellectual status to acknowledge something through discussion like "It appears I may have been incorrect on reason X" or "But you've overlooked some other ramifications about reason X" instead of "NUH UH!! UR JUST PLAYING A TRICK. NO ONE WILL STOP ME FROM SPEAKING THE TRUTH!"

I'm not trying to defend the pastor or his ideals, merely his right to say what he believes. It would indeed be lovely if everyone just talked sense, but when people don't, the correct way to deal with it is not to forbid them to talk but to try to persuade them that they are wrong, and if this proves impossible, to ignore them and to try to persuade others to critically analyse the beliefs that the idiot will fire at them. You talk of a standard of maturity, but who would set this standard? The politicians? We have to be ready to listen to any point of view, nomatter how inelegantly expressed, and nomatter what we might think of the person expressing it, or we risk limiting the variety of beliefs we will come into contact with, and so losing our status as freethinkers and philosophers.

Yet, the more immaturity succeeds in giving the impression that they get their way like that, simply because they irritate others enough to discontinue talking to a brick wall, the more it picks up and gets adopted by sheeple. Monkey see, monkey do. Society is regressing, not advancing.
I'm not saying freedom of speech causes that, I'm saying overgrown children who misuse it are.


Do you have any evidence for society regressing?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect

Things seem to be getting better to me. I've just joined my uni's new (founded at the start of this year) Society of Atheists. I see as many new thoughtful people as I see dogmatic and infantile ones.

I don't think that immaturity is good, but by attempting to prevent people expressing their views because they do so immaturely we risk putting freedom of expression in danger, and this is a risk I do not believe we can afford to take.

[Will.]

LOL THX WILL

I try.

[tagnostic]

the problem is not
people expressing their views
its people who refuse
to change them

[Will.]

the problem is not
people expressing their views
its people who refuse
to change them

No, its people who wish their views on others, now thats the problem, I believe life should be a journey of a personal truth.

[tagnostic]

not seeing
the difference

the ability to express views
is inherent in sapience
the ability to valuate
compare, re-evalute
then decide
makes you worth
actually communicating with

[Will.]

not seeing
the difference

the ability to express views
is inherent in sapience
the ability to valuate
compare, re-evalute
then decide
makes you worth
actually communicating with



Communication, is an essential part of humanity,
POV are not. :(

[tagnostic]

point to will