Terry Jones arrested for attempting to burn 2,998 copies of the Koran.

Page 3 of 9
#81
Quote by Todd Hart
So you would say that Salman Rushdie is a terrorist? Or that the Danish cartoonists were guilty of treason?

If they knew that their actions would cause deaths, and if representatives of their governments had begged them not to do it, like in the case with Jones... possibly. I don't recall representatives of their governments begging them not to carry out actions that are likely to cause deaths to others and them going ahead and doing it anyway against their government's wishes though.
Last edited by SlackerBabbath at Sep 14, 2013,
#82
Quote by SlackerBabbath
If they knew that their actions would cause deaths, and if representatives of their governments had begged them not to do it, like in the case with Jones... possibly. I don't recall representatives of their governments begging them not to carry out actions that are likely to cause deaths to others and them going ahead and doing it anyway against their government's wishes though.


I think it's safe to say that every author and artists who has written or drawn controversial pieces about Islam or Islamic figures/customs since Salman Rushdie has known that their work could very well lead to deaths. It's simply beyond you, though, to confuse offense taking on the part of the violent for incitement on the part of their critics.
...Stapling helium to penguins since 1949.
#83
Quote by Todd Hart
I think it's safe to say that every author and artists who has written or drawn controversial pieces about Islam or Islamic figures/customs since Salman Rushdie has known that their work could very well lead to deaths.


I disagree, people who live in a western society where criticising or making fun of things is an everyday occurence are not always aware of the dangers of criticising or making fun of certain people in different countries where things are different.
Rushdie was one of the first to find out that his comments about Islam could cause serious consequences, so it wasn't as if he had a previous example.
Quote by Todd Hart

It's simply beyond you, though, to confuse offense taking on the part of the violent for incitement on the part of their critics.


There's a difference between criticising and deliberately causing offence. People openly criticise Islam and Islamic extremism all the time without fear of repercussions, because criticism can be done with respect as part of open debate. But blatently trying to offend Muslims by burning something that they consider as sacred cannot possibly be considered as anything other than pure incitement.

I could burn 2,700 Bibles, in the same way that Jones intended to burn the Qur'ans, one for every victim of the 'Massacre at Acre' carried out by Christians during the Crusades where 2,700 old men, women and children were bunched together, tied with ropes and subjected to a charge by Frankish infantrymen and 'hacked' to pieces and 'pierced' with lances, but I wouldn't do it because a) it would be disrespectful to every decent Christian and b) it would almost certainly cause serious repercussions because there will always be some Christian who's crazy enough to retaliate in a vicious way. In other words I wouldn't do it because it would be incitement.

Doesn't stop me respectfully criticising Christianity though.
Last edited by SlackerBabbath at Sep 14, 2013,
#84
I'd like to respond more at length later but for now please consider the difference between direct and indirect harm and further examine the implications of making concessions to blackmail.
“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.”
Charles Darwin
#85
Quote by SlackerBabbath
And that's the point right there... contradictory to the first part of your post that I bolded, the second bolded part clearly shows that there IS a 'difference'... unlike the WBC Islamic extremists DO kill people in retaliation for the kind of stunts that Jones keeps pulling. And the other important point to remember is that Jones KNOWS this and is still willing to do anything he can to anger people who he KNOWS are likely to go and kill someone else over it.

As the link that you provided says;
"Jones repeatedly has ignored pleas from the U.S. military asking him not to stage his protests. Military officials say his actions put American and Western troops in Afghanistan and elsewhere in danger."

If he KNOWS that his actions are likely to cause harm to American troops, and he goes ahead and does it anyway, isn't that tantamount to treason? Doesn't it essentialy make him a terrorist?


C'mon man, it's just a common sense point. A black and white statement, something that everyone knows, are you gonna prove it wrong or come up with a completely unrelated scenario that could possibly be an exeption to the general rule?

You and I agree on damn near everything except this topic. We even agree that Jones is a douche bag of the highest magnitude.
The editors of Jyllands-Posten in Denmark were aware that if they published their series of Mohamed cartoons it would cause problems. They did it any ways citing freedom of the press and expression. I agree with them. Rushdie published his Satanic verses knowing Khomeini would issue a fatwa against him. I agree with his right to publish. Jones helped finance that incredible horrible piece of cinematic expression called Innocence of Muslims. I support his right to do so. The problem isn't what these people do. The problem is how a bunch of morons react to it. None of those mentioned are responsible for the irresponsible reactions they get. In their minds they are proving a point and from what I see radical muslims step right up and help them.
Quote by SomeoneYouKnew
You should be careful what you say. Some asshole will probably sig it.

Quote by Axelfox
Yup, a girl went up to me in my fursuit one time.

Quote by Xiaoxi
I can fap to this. Keep going.
#86
Quote by SlackerBabbath
There's a difference between criticising and deliberately causing offence. People openly criticise Islam and Islamic extremism all the time without fear of repercussions, because criticism can be done with respect as part of open debate.

You would have to show me examples of that.
Quote by SomeoneYouKnew
You should be careful what you say. Some asshole will probably sig it.

Quote by Axelfox
Yup, a girl went up to me in my fursuit one time.

Quote by Xiaoxi
I can fap to this. Keep going.
#88
I don't even think Nakoula Basseley, that guy who helped make that 'anti-Islam' video that sparked violence around the world, was arrested based on his perceived insults. Still protected by the first amendment.
Quote by Overlord
It's not hard to be nice, but it's nice to be hard
#89
Quote by Jackal58
You and I agree on damn near everything except this topic. We even agree that Jones is a douche bag of the highest magnitude.

I think we can probably put that down to cultural differences. You were raised in a culture that values freedom of expression in almost any form over pretty much everything else while I was raised in a culture that, while it still values freedom of expression, tends to be a bit more reserved about certain forms of that expression, especially forms of expression that are designed to deliberately cause offence or incite hatred.

Quote by Jackal58
You would have to show me examples of that.

How about the example of myself? How many times have you seen me openly but respectfully criticising Islamic extremism by quoting the Qur'an itself and showing how Islamic extremism actualy contradicts it? UG isn't the only place on the internet that I've done that and I've never recieved a death threat from a Muslim, I've never even been criticised by a Muslim for my comments.

Islam has a historical TRADITION of open debate. It even states in the Qur'an that any ideological criticism of the Qur'an's teachings are to be met with debate, not violence.

The Qur'an itself also states;
"Let there be no compulsion in religion" (Qur'an 2:256)

That basically means that people should be allowed to believe what they want to believe and that Muslims shouldn't attempt to force their beliefs upon other people.

Of course, Islam being Islam, like any other religion, it assumes that anyone who believes anything different from their own religion is wrong, but the Qur'an actualy acknowledges their right to be wrong and not be persecuted for being wrong, which was actualy a very important historical development in human rights.

Dunno if you've ever seen it before but this is a famous letter written during the 'Golden Age of Islam' written to someone by 'al-Hashimi', who was a cousin of Caliph (head of state) 'al-Ma'mun'. It quotes the 'no compulsion' Quranic verse I mentioned and pronounces the Islamic tradition of valuing debate over force quite nicely.

"Bring forward all the arguments you wish and say whatever you please and speak your mind freely. Now that you are safe and free to say whatever you please appoint some arbitrator who will impartially judge between us and lean only towards the truth and be free from the empary of passion, and that arbitrator shall be Reason, whereby God makes us responsible for our own rewards and punishments. Herein I have dealt justly with you and have given you full security and am ready to accept whatever decision Reason may give for me or against me. For "There is no compulsion in religion" (Qur'an 2:256) and I have only invited you to accept our faith willingly and of your own accord and have pointed out the hideousness of your present belief. Peace be upon you and the blessings of God!"


Quote by Arby911
I'd like to respond more at length later but for now please consider the difference between direct and indirect harm and further examine the implications of making concessions to blackmail.


Blackmail?
Blackmail is defined as 'coercion' (the practice of one party forcing another party to act in an involuntary manner) involving threats of some nature resulting in the first party gaining from the second party's involuntary actions.

It is not defined as threats of physical harm in 'retaliation' for blatent insults.

Go into any bar, walk up to any guy and blatently insult him to his face, if he turns around and hits you, didn't you deserve it? Wouldn't everyone else in the bar agree that you deserved it and even say that you 'asked' for it?
How about if instead of just hitting you straight away he said to you "If you insult me again I will hit you!" Wouldn't that be considered as 'fair warning' rather than 'blackmail'?

Infact, in American constitutional law there is a doctrine known as the 'fighting words' doctrine which is actualy a legal limitation on freedom of speech made in 1942 which has continued to be upheld to this day. 'Fighting words' are considered as written or spoken words or actions, generally expressed or carried out with the aim of inciting hatred or violence from their target. Under the 'fighting words' doctrine, Jones could theoreticaly be legaly prosecuted for attempting to incite hatred or violence from his target, namely, every Muslim on the planet.
Last edited by SlackerBabbath at Sep 15, 2013,
#90
The guy is literally no different then any other terrorist.

He's a religious extremist.
His solution to conflict is to blame it on an inanimate object.
He's a pastor, so everything he does here is made worse by that fact.
#91
Quote by AllJudasPriest
The guy is literally no different then any other terrorist.

He's a religious extremist.
His solution to conflict is to blame it on an inanimate object.
He's a pastor, so everything he does here is made worse by that fact.



Except that, you know, he hasn't killed or even tried to kill anyone...

You're pretty liberal in your application of the term "terrorist".
“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.”
Charles Darwin
#92
Quote by AllJudasPriest
The guy is literally no different then any other terrorist.

He's a religious extremist.
His solution to conflict is to blame it on an inanimate object.
He's a pastor, so everything he does here is made worse by that fact.


I swear you used to be quite insightful.
...Stapling helium to penguins since 1949.
#93
Quote by SlackerBabbath


Blackmail?
Blackmail is defined as 'coercion' (the practice of one party forcing another party to act in an involuntary manner) involving threats of some nature resulting in the first party gaining from the second party's involuntary actions.

It is not defined as threats of physical harm in 'retaliation' for blatent insults.

Go into any bar, walk up to any guy and blatently insult him to his face, if he turns around and hits you, didn't you deserve it? Wouldn't everyone else in the bar agree that you deserved it and even say that you 'asked' for it?
How about if instead of just hitting you straight away he said to you "If you insult me again I will hit you!" Wouldn't that be considered as 'fair warning' rather than 'blackmail'?

Infact, in American constitutional law there is a doctrine known as the 'fighting words' doctrine which is actualy a legal limitation on freedom of speech made in 1942 which has continued to be upheld to this day. 'Fighting words' are considered as written or spoken words or actions, generally expressed or carried out with the aim of inciting hatred or violence from their target. Under the 'fighting words' doctrine, Jones could theoreticaly be legaly prosecuted for attempting to incite hatred or violence from his target, namely, every Muslim on the planet.


You constantly bring up the "fighting words" concept, and then grossly misuse it. If you're going to cite it you should do more research about it. A public or general offense does not qualify, nor does mere offensiveness, it must be specific and individually directed.

And threat of violence against a 3rd party in order to coerce or prohibit an action falls under the general "blackmail" heading but would be prosecuted as criminal threatening or threat to commit depending on the actual jurisdiction. Suffice it to say that threatening to commit a crime of violence against a 3rd party due to the actions (especially the LEGAL actions) of another is indeed a crime.

Quit being an appeaser, Mr. Chamberlain.

I'll expand when I get near a conventional keyboard.
“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.”
Charles Darwin
#94
Quote by Arby911
Except that, you know, he hasn't killed or even tried to kill anyone...

You're pretty liberal in your application of the term "terrorist".
Yeah, I used the wrong word. I'm sorry about that.
Quote by Todd Hart
I swear you used to be quite insightful.
And, just like now, was still a complete idiot then.
#95
Quote by SlackerBabbath
I think we can probably put that down to cultural differences. You were raised in a culture that values freedom of expression in almost any form over pretty much everything else while I was raised in a culture that, while it still values freedom of expression, tends to be a bit more reserved about certain forms of that expression, especially forms of expression that are designed to deliberately cause offence or incite hatred.


How about the example of myself? How many times have you seen me openly but respectfully criticising Islamic extremism by quoting the Qur'an itself and showing how Islamic extremism actualy contradicts it? UG isn't the only place on the internet that I've done that and I've never recieved a death threat from a Muslim, I've never even been criticised by a Muslim for my comments.

Islam has a historical TRADITION of open debate. It even states in the Qur'an that any ideological criticism of the Qur'an's teachings are to be met with debate, not violence.

The Qur'an itself also states;
"Let there be no compulsion in religion" (Qur'an 2:256)

That basically means that people should be allowed to believe what they want to believe and that Muslims shouldn't attempt to force their beliefs upon other people.

Of course, Islam being Islam, like any other religion, it assumes that anyone who believes anything different from their own religion is wrong, but the Qur'an actualy acknowledges their right to be wrong and not be persecuted for being wrong, which was actualy a very important historical development in human rights.

Dunno if you've ever seen it before but this is a famous letter written during the 'Golden Age of Islam' written to someone by 'al-Hashimi', who was a cousin of Caliph (head of state) 'al-Ma'mun'. It quotes the 'no compulsion' Quranic verse I mentioned and pronounces the Islamic tradition of valuing debate over force quite nicely.

"Bring forward all the arguments you wish and say whatever you please and speak your mind freely. Now that you are safe and free to say whatever you please appoint some arbitrator who will impartially judge between us and lean only towards the truth and be free from the empary of passion, and that arbitrator shall be Reason, whereby God makes us responsible for our own rewards and punishments. Herein I have dealt justly with you and have given you full security and am ready to accept whatever decision Reason may give for me or against me. For "There is no compulsion in religion" (Qur'an 2:256) and I have only invited you to accept our faith willingly and of your own accord and have pointed out the hideousness of your present belief. Peace be upon you and the blessings of God!"

I realize you have criticized extremism as have I. I have received no death threats either. I really meant examples of criticism leveid against Islam by mainstream media that did not create a reaction from extremists. Our audience is quite small. And yes I have read the al-Hashimi letter before and have shared it with people that believe all Islam is like the Taliban.
Quote by SomeoneYouKnew
You should be careful what you say. Some asshole will probably sig it.

Quote by Axelfox
Yup, a girl went up to me in my fursuit one time.

Quote by Xiaoxi
I can fap to this. Keep going.
#96
If you're gonna use fighting words doctrine as your argument then you cannot simply use a broad definition to justify a conviction in this case. You must look at precedence and case history. The fighting words doctrine itself has even upheld to this day, yes, but the Supreme Court has declined to uphold any convictions for fighting words since the Chaplinsky case (1942). Convictions that its declined to uphold? Many of them are very much like this case. Since Chaplinsky, the Court has repeatedly determined that speech that merely causes anger or outrage does not amount to fighting words. For instance, in Street v. New York (1969), a man publicly burned an American flag and made defiant comments towards the flag. The Court declined a conviction and ruled that "The mere offensiveness of words does not strip them of constitutional protection, the Court again noted that fighting words must present an actual threat of immediate violence, not merely offensive content.

So saying that the United States Supreme Court would convict Jones because of the fighting words doctrine is untrue, seeing is how the Court has already determined in a nearly (essentially) identical case that a conviction would be unconstitutional. If Jones's book burning causes Muslims in the Middle East to start blowing up churches and cars and lynching Americans overseas, then fine. But just because these people are generally less educated, less informed on how to reasonably deal with insult, and believe to have no other means of protest other than blowing things up, it does not mean that we start to restrict expression to prevent such retaliations.
Quote by Overlord
It's not hard to be nice, but it's nice to be hard
Last edited by Carnivean at Sep 16, 2013,
#97
Quote by Arby911
Except that, you know, he hasn't killed or even tried to kill anyone...

You're pretty liberal in your application of the term "terrorist".


You could certainly define it as 'terrorism by proxy'.
Terrorism is the use of violent terror as a means of coercion.

He's essentialy putting forward the view that Islam is evil. If he knows that his actions are likely to result in people being killed by Muslims, then he's using Muslim violence, triggered by himself, to as a means of coercing people into following his view. Ergo, 'terrorism by proxy'.

He may not have personaly killed or even tried to kill anyone, but we can certainly consider that he attempted to cause people to be killed. Consider this, Osama bin Laden apparently never personaly killed or attempted to kill anyone, he just got other people to do it for him, which is essentialy what Jones is doing.

Quote by Jackal58
I realize you have criticized extremism as have I. I have received no death threats either. I really meant examples of criticism leveid against Islam by mainstream media that did not create a reaction from extremists. Our audience is quite small. And yes I have read the al-Hashimi letter before and have shared it with people that believe all Islam is like the Taliban.


There's probably thousands of examples of criticism leveid against Islam by mainstream media that did not create a reaction from extremists. Don't forget, it's pretty much only the cases that do create a reaction from extremists that make the news so we just don't get to hear about the others.
Quote by Carnivean
If you're gonna use fighting words doctrine as your argument then you cannot simply use a broad definition to justify a conviction in this case. You must look at precedence and case history. The fighting words doctrine itself has even upheld to this day, yes, but the Supreme Court has declined to uphold any convictions for fighting words since the Chaplinsky case (1942). Convictions that its declined to uphold? Many of them are very much like this case. Since Chaplinsky, the Court has repeatedly determined that speech that merely causes anger or outrage does not amount to fighting words. For instance, in Street v. New York (1969), a man publicly burned an American flag and made defiant comments towards the flag. The Court declined a conviction and ruled that "The mere offensiveness of words does not strip them of constitutional protection, the Court again noted that fighting words must present an actual threat of immediate violence, not merely offensive content.

So saying that the United States Supreme Court would convict Jones because of the fighting words doctrine is untrue seeing is how the Court has already determined in a nearly (essentially) identical case that a conviction would be unconstitutional. If Jones's book burning causes Muslims in the Middle East to start blowing up churches and cars and lynching Americans overseas, then fine. But just because these people are generally less educated, less informed on how to reasonably deal with insult, and believe to have no other means of protest other than blowing things up, it does not mean that we start to restrict expression to prevent such retaliations.

I didn't say that the United States Supreme Court 'would convict' Jones, I said that using the the fighting words doctrine he 'could theoreticaly be prosecuted' for attempting to incite hatred or violence from his target. ('conviction' and 'prosecution' are two different things, a 'conviction' is an end result of a 'prosecution')

So, essentialy, you're telling me that inciting violence against fellow US citizens is perfectly legal in the US and should always continue to be perfectly legal?
Last edited by SlackerBabbath at Sep 16, 2013,
#98
I think he's being arrested for attempting to burn them in a park when he didn't have permits?
This ends now, eat the goddamn beans!
#99
Burning books isn't inciting violence. It's burning books. We don't bend laws around the sensibilities of extremists.
#100
Quote by Skynyrd890
I think he's being arrested for attempting to burn them in a park when he didn't have permits?

He was charged with 'transporting fuel illegally', mainly because the way he transported it (the fuel was kerosene which was soaked into copies of the Qur'an which in turn were placed on a large barbecue grill which was towed behind a truck that Jones was driving) was considered as a dangerous way to transport fuel and could be a possible hazard.
The arrest for him for attempting to burn them in a park without a permit would probably be an unsafe arrest because he didn't actualy get the opportunity to 'attempt' to burn them.

Quote by Rossenrot
Burning books isn't inciting violence. It's burning books.

It is if you know for a fact that the books you burn are highly likely to incite violence and still do it anyway.

Quote by Rossenrot
We don't bend laws around the sensibilities of extremists.

Any violent reaction to anything whatsoever is an 'extremist' reaction by definition.

In Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), The Court held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is directed to inciting, and is likely to incite imminent lawless action or constituted a "clear and present danger"."

As the link in the opening post says; "Jones repeatedly has ignored pleas from the U.S. military asking him not to stage his protests. Military officials say his actions put American and Western troops in Afghanistan and elsewhere in danger."
So as you can see, it has already been established by the US military that his actions constitute a "clear and present danger" and not only that but Jones knows it does, which then makes his actions a purposeful attempt at inciting violence.
Last edited by SlackerBabbath at Sep 16, 2013,
#101
Quote by SlackerBabbath
In Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), The Court held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is directed to inciting, and is likely to incite imminent lawless action or constituted a "clear and present danger"."

As the link in the opening post says; "Jones repeatedly has ignored pleas from the U.S. military asking him not to stage his protests. Military officials say his actions put American and Western troops in Afghanistan and elsewhere in danger."
So as you can see, it has already been established that his actions constitutes a "clear and present danger" and not only that but Jones knows it does, which then makes his actions a purposeful attempt at inciting violence.


Dude the guy in Brandenburg v. Ohio was a KKK leader that rallied a bunch of his followers one day and basically ordered them to go out and beat up blacks in the community. That is called advocating violence, and it is an immediate threat to society. Of course he's gonna be arrested.

Also I wanna reiterate the case I cited above where the guy burned the American flag: He wasn't convicted. And no one killed him either despite surely offending many Americans. Jones's case is no different, except the people he offends decide to retaliate by killing completely innocent people who are unrelated to him and his actions. If retaliation like that is happening in reaction to book burning, then there is something wrong with the people, not the law.
Quote by Overlord
It's not hard to be nice, but it's nice to be hard
#102
Quote by SlackerBabbath
Any violent reaction to anything whatsoever is an 'extremist' reaction by definition.

In Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), The Court held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is directed to inciting, and is likely to incite imminent lawless action or constituted a "clear and present danger"."

As the link in the opening post says; "Jones repeatedly has ignored pleas from the U.S. military asking him not to stage his protests. Military officials say his actions put American and Western troops in Afghanistan and elsewhere in danger."
So as you can see, it has already been established that his actions constitutes a "clear and present danger" and not only that but Jones knows it does, which then makes his actions a purposeful attempt at inciting violence.


Extremism does not need to be violent.

As for your second point, I can dig, but here we would be assuming what his intentions are. Someone, no matter how stupid they are, who lawfully obtains 3,000 Qurans has ownership of them and is within their rights to destroy them. This man is absolutely and idiot, especially when you consider that dozens of the victims of 9/11 (not including the hijackers) were Muslim. I don't want to be one of these "slippery slope" goons, but preventing a non-violent protest out of fear of a violent reaction is punishment of the wrong party.

I touched on this a few months ago, I think that we need to be able to treat Islam the same as we treat other religions. We cant let violent extremists hold influence over our rights, and holding one group to a different standard than another is immoral.
#103
Quote by Carnivean
Dude the guy in Brandenburg v. Ohio was a KKK leader that rallied a bunch of his followers one day and basically ordered them to go out and beat up blacks in the community. That is called advocating violence, and it is an immediate threat to society. Of course he's gonna be arrested.

Here's the point you keep missing, if a person knows their actions are more than likely going to result in violence, and then has a choice of either carrying them out or not carrying them out but goes on to carry out those actions anyway, they are effectively advocating violence too.
Quote by Carnivean

Also I wanna reiterate the case I cited above where the guy burned the American flag: He wasn't convicted. And no one killed him either despite surely offending many Americans. Jones's case is no different, except the people he offends decide to retaliate by killing completely innocent people who are unrelated to him and his actions.

So infact, contradictory to the bolded part, Jones's case is different because his actions are known to have caused deaths.

Quote by Carnivean
If retaliation like that is happening in reaction to book burning, then there is something wrong with the people, not the law.

I agree that there is something seriously wrong with the people who react violently, but I maintane there is also something obviously wrong with people who would incite violent people to act violently towards completely innocent people and that the law should represent that.
Quote by Rossenrot
Extremism does not need to be violent.

As for your second point, I can dig, but here we would be assuming what his intentions are. Someone, no matter how stupid they are, who lawfully obtains 3,000 Qurans has ownership of them and is within their rights to destroy them. This man is absolutely and idiot, especially when you consider that dozens of the victims of 9/11 (not including the hijackers) were Muslim. I don't want to be one of these "slippery slope" goons, but preventing a non-violent protest out of fear of a violent reaction is punishment of the wrong party.

He'd already been told by Military officials that his actions put American and Western troops in Afghanistan and elsewhere in danger, so if he knows the consequences of his actions and still carries them out, then it's reasonable to consider that those consequences are a part of his intentions.
He wants American people to consider Muslims as evil, so if he can get Muslims to commit violent acts against Americans it works in his favour.


Quote by Rossenrot
I touched on this a few months ago, I think that we need to be able to treat Islam the same as we treat other religions. We cant let violent extremists hold influence over our rights, and holding one group to a different standard than another is immoral.

I agree that we need to be able to treat Islam the same as we treat other religions, but when have you seen someone publicly burning thousands of the sacred books of another religion?
Last edited by SlackerBabbath at Sep 16, 2013,
#104
Quote by SlackerBabbath
He'd already been told by Military officials that his actions put American and Western troops in Afghanistan and elsewhere in danger, so if he knows the consequences of his actions and still carries them out, then it's reasonable to consider that those consequences are a part of his intentions.
He wants American people to consider Muslims as evil, so if he can get Muslims to commit violent acts against Americans it works in his favour.

I agree that we need to be able to treat Islam the same as we treat other religions, but when have you seen someone publicly burning thousands of the sacred books of another religion?


OR his intentions were unaffected by the warnings and his convictions were unaffected by the potential consequences. We cant prove that his intent was to put people in danger, and I'd wager that he was acting out of defiance, and not overtly trying to get NATO forces killed. That's just my wager though, you could be right, but we'll probably never know.

I don't see how this exempts Islam from fair judgment. Plus, plenty of examples of other religions being disrespected in equal and worse fashions occur quite often. We're seeing it happen now in Egypt against the Coptic Christians. We also see it quite often against Jews, notably at Roger Waters concerts. Islam is hardly alone in being besmirched publically. They are however, the current leader of religiously motivated violence. Focusing on some stupid inbred backwoods piece of shit asshole motherfucker seems to be a distraction. His poor decisions are the act of a depraved man, and if our national security depends on the rationality of every citizen to not do things like this, then we've got major issues. The problem isn't zealots with obtuse mustaches, it's our crippling fear of Islamic extremists.
#105
Quote by Rossenrot
OR his intentions were unaffected by the warnings and his convictions were unaffected by the potential consequences. We cant prove that his intent was to put people in danger, and I'd wager that he was acting out of defiance, and not overtly trying to get NATO forces killed. That's just my wager though, you could be right, but we'll probably never know.

I'd argue that knowing what the consequences of your actions are and then carrying out those actions anyway proves that you intend for those consequences to happen.

Quote by Rossenrot
I don't see how this exempts Islam from fair judgment.

It doesn't, but it shows that, in America anyway, Islam isn't being treated equaly along with other religions.
Quote by Rossenrot
Plus, plenty of examples of other religions being disrespected in equal and worse fashions occur quite often. We're seeing it happen now in Egypt against the Coptic Christians. We also see it quite often against Jews, notably at Roger Waters concerts. Islam is hardly alone in being besmirched publically.

We're just talking about inside America here, in America Islam is treated much worse than practicaly any other religion. Mainly because of the whole 9/11 thing, but you cannot blame an entire religion, who's members are, on the whole, peaceful people, for the actions of a relatively few religious extremists.
Quote by Rossenrot

They are however, the current leader of religiously motivated violence. Focusing on some stupid inbred backwoods piece of shit asshole motherfucker seems to be a distraction. His poor decisions are the act of a depraved man, and if our national security depends on the rationality of every citizen to not do things like this, then we've got major issues. The problem isn't zealots with obtuse mustaches, it's our crippling fear of Islamic extremists.

I argue that zealots with obtuse mustaches who willingly incite violence from Islamic extremists are a definate part of the problem.
Last edited by SlackerBabbath at Sep 16, 2013,
#106
Quote by SlackerBabbath
I'd argue that knowing what the consequences of your actions are and then carrying out those actions anyway proves that you intend for those consequences to happen.


So....If I were to become fanatically violent, and cause it to be known that any attempt to restrict my movements, actions or personal desires would result in violence against a third party, than anyone who attempted to prohibit from me any of those things would be in the wrong, right?

Because after all, according to you if it's a KNOWN problem, then the person causing me to be so angered is at fault. That's your logic, let's see you own it...

Because from my perspective, that's just plain stupid.

The legal exercise of one person's rights can never be considered sufficient grounds for another to act unlawfully, and all your stretching, pontificating and outright mendaciousness on the subject won't change it.

You are categorically NOT stupid, so quit acting like your argument has any real merit.

Also, your 'definition' of terrorism is so overbroad as to be useless. It renders the very word terrorism sterile and invalid. If we use your version, spanking one's child qualifies as terrorism...

Quote by SlackerBabbath
We're just talking about inside America here, in America Islam is treated much worse than practicaly any other religion.


Nonsense. In point of fact we've gone so far to avoid this that it could be reasonably argued that in fact you are correct that Islam isn't being treated equally, instead it's being treated preferentially, at least on an institutional level.
“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.”
Charles Darwin
Last edited by Arby911 at Sep 16, 2013,
#107
Quote by SlackerBabbath
I'd argue that knowing what the consequences of your actions are and then carrying out those actions anyway proves that you intend for those consequences to happen.


This is terrifyingly close to the argument that victim blamers use in rape cases.

It doesn't, but it shows that, in America anyway, Islam isn't being treated equaly along with other religions.

We're just talking about inside America here, in America Islam is treated much worse than practicaly any other religion. Mainly because of the whole 9/11 thing, but you cannot blame an entire religion, who's members are, on the whole, peaceful people, for the actions of a relatively few religious extremists.

I argue that zealots with obtuse mustaches who willingly incite violence from Islamic extremists are a definate part of the problem.


Islam is not equal to other religions, and shouldn't be treated as such. Islam is clearly the most dangerous major religion at this time, and so treating it with more contempt than other religions is forgivable. I see no problem with blaming the religion, even if the vast majority of its adherents are peaceful. Indeed, it would be wrong to blame those people, but to blame the religion for the actions of religious fundamentalists is simply to call a spade a spade.
...Stapling helium to penguins since 1949.
#108
Quote by Todd Hart
This is terrifyingly close to the argument that victim blamers use in rape cases.


He knows that, I've got to believe he's playing Devil's advocate here, since I can't come up with any other rational explanation for his argument.
“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.”
Charles Darwin
#109
Slacker, many other things that happen in our societies each day have caused violent retaliation in the Middle East. Articles, speeches, decisions made by politicians, and so on. I could go write a big long blog about why I think Christianity is a better religion than Islam, and an angry extremist could read it and decide to make it known that if I voice such an opinion, Americans near him will die. Should I be restrained from writing more blogs?
Quote by Overlord
It's not hard to be nice, but it's nice to be hard
Last edited by Carnivean at Sep 16, 2013,
#110
Also, I'd like to point out that there hasn't been a public burning of thousands of Qurans. The biggest controversy we've had was the accidental burning of four Qurans on Bagram, which prompted an apology from the President, and days of protests and fatalities. What wasn't widely reported was the two bibles that were also burned.

EDIT: Also, Youtube "bible burnings" and then "Quran burnings" and see the difference in results. It paints a clear picture.
Last edited by Rossenrot at Sep 16, 2013,
#111
I don't agree with any religion but this guys behavior is only going to entice violence and negativity.

Couldn't he just state that he disagrees with Islam and go on his way?

Here, he is stepping onto peoples faith who have done nothing wrong to him...
#113
Quote by CodChick
Ah... Americans...


Given that you're intending to join some branch of the US military, you might want to consider moderating the condescension...
“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.”
Charles Darwin
#114
Quote by CodChick
Ah... Americans...

Canadians eh.
Quote by SomeoneYouKnew
You should be careful what you say. Some asshole will probably sig it.

Quote by Axelfox
Yup, a girl went up to me in my fursuit one time.

Quote by Xiaoxi
I can fap to this. Keep going.
#115
Quote by Arby911
So....If I were to become fanatically violent, and cause it to be known that any attempt to restrict my movements, actions or personal desires would result in violence against a third party, than anyone who attempted to prohibit from me any of those things would be in the wrong, right?

Wrong, anyone who attempted to prohibit you from carrying out violence would be in the right, but anyone who knows about your mental issues and anger management problems and then incites you into becoming violent towrds others would also be in the wrong. Y'see, the fact that your own violence is your own fault doesn't change the fact that those who would happily incite you are also in the wrong.

Just because I'm criticising Jones' actions, that doesn't mean that I'm also condoning the actions of Islamic extremists who react violently to his blatent incitement, so please stop trying to vilify me by suggesting that I am. It's an underhand ploy that isn't going to do you any favours during this debate.

Quote by Arby911

Because after all, according to you if it's a KNOWN problem, then the person causing me to be so angered is at fault. That's your logic, let's see you own it...

Because from my perspective, that's just plain stupid.

So according to your own logic it's perfectly reasonable behaviour for someone to incite violence against innocents in people who are already known to be violent?

Of course the person purposely causing you to be angered in order to incite a violent reaction is partially at fault. What's so stupid about that?
Quote by Arby911

The legal exercise of one person's rights can never be considered sufficient grounds for another to act unlawfully, and all your stretching, pontificating and outright mendaciousness on the subject won't change it.

But where exactly did I say that the legal exercise of one person's rights should be considered as sufficient grounds for another to act unlawfully?

Look, pay attention for a minute while I make this as clear as I possibly can.
I. Am. Not. Condoning. Violence. In. Any. Way. Shape. Or. Form.

I'm simply saying that those who willingly incite violence, like Jones does, are wrong to do so and that the law should recognise that.
Quote by Arby911

You are categorically NOT stupid, so quit acting like your argument has any real merit.

Of course the argument has merit, practicaly everyone here agrees that Jones is a complete idiot for the things he does and says, the American Military have catigoricaly stated that he's part of the problem and have asked him to stop being part of the problem, so why are you so intent on defending his idiotic actions?
Quote by Arby911

Also, your 'definition' of terrorism is so overbroad as to be useless. It renders the very word terrorism sterile and invalid. If we use your version, spanking one's child qualifies as terrorism...

I defined terrorism as the "use of violent terror as a means of coercion" it's a pretty standard definition that I got from a dictionary. Try looking it up.

The only difference between terrorism and spanking one's child in order to coerce them is that the term 'terrorism' is usualy defined as something that is done with the intention of intimidating or coercing whole societies with violence rather than just one child. Apart from that, yes, they are very similar in the way that they work. That's why people who regularly abuse their children by spanking them are often accused of 'terrorizing' them.
Cross reference the words 'terrorizing' with 'child abuse' in Google if you don't believe me.

Quote by Arby911

Nonsense. In point of fact we've gone so far to avoid this that it could be reasonably argued that in fact you are correct that Islam isn't being treated equally, instead it's being treated preferentially, at least on an institutional level.

And why do you think it's being treated preferentially on an institutional level? To try to counter the damage of it being treated so badly on a public level. If it wasn't being treated so badly on a public level, there wouldn't be any need for any preferential treatment on an institutional level.

Quote by Todd Hart

This is terrifyingly close to the argument that victim blamers use in rape cases.

It would be if rape victims 'knew' that their behaviour would result in their rape and 'intended' for their behaviour to result in their rape, which is essentialy what I've been arguing all along in the case of Jones.

Quote by Todd Hart
Islam is not equal to other religions, and shouldn't be treated as such. Islam is clearly the most dangerous major religion at this time, and so treating it with more contempt than other religions is forgivable.

And here ladies and gentlemen is another part of the main problem, people like Todd Hart who simply assume that all people who follow Islam are the same, people who vilify the whole religion and assume that it's the whole religion that's to blame for acts of violence rather than a minority of people who carry out acts of violence in the name of a religion in contradiction to the teachings of the religion in question.

The religion itself isn't to blame, it's the people who try to use the religion in an attempt to justify their own vile actions that are to blame. But when someone comes along and purposely incites those same people into carrying out even more vile actions, they are obviously also partialy to blame.

Quote by Todd Hart

I see no problem with blaming the religion, even if the vast majority of its adherents are peaceful. Indeed, it would be wrong to blame those people, but to blame the religion for the actions of religious fundamentalists is simply to call a spade a spade.

No, blaming the whole religion for the actions of a minority of religious fundamentalists who actualy go against the teachings of the religion in question is not "calling a spade a spade", it's effectively calling every other tool in the shed a spade as well.

Quote by Carnivean
Slacker, many other things that happen in our societies each day have caused violent retaliation in the Middle East. Articles, speeches, decisions made by politicians, and so on.

I agree, but most of those are not obviously done with the intention of soliciting a violent reaction as in the case of Jones' actions. It's reasonable to criticise a religion from a well thought out point of view, but it's unreasonable to just blatently insult it and it's members. There's a big difference between the two.

When have you ever seen a debate won by someone who simply insulted the other side? Insults do nothing for a person's case, nor for anyone else attempting to make the same case in a more reasonable manner, infact it's more likely to damage their case.
Last edited by SlackerBabbath at Sep 17, 2013,
#116
Quote by SlackerBabbath
<Great Wall O' Text>



And now you've apparently gone from arguing the legal merits to arguing the moral merits, which is disappointing because it's in effect a subject change in order to disguise the fact that you've been wrong all along.

Look, no one that I know has argued that his actions are savory or laudable, including me, so you might as well drop that line of thought. I understand your contention that he may have some level of moral culpability due to the egregious nature of his protest, although I'm sure opinions vary as to the exact degree, but then I've never argued otherwise.

But I have consistently argued he had a legal right to do what he intended (excepting the manner in which he attempted it, which was apparently illegal for a reason unrelated to the discussion at hand.)

I further find your dodge about 'terrorism' unworthy of someone of your intellect. You know as well as I that not only is the discussion of what actually constitutes terrorism ongoing, but that NO ONE discussing the subject rationally uses the puerile definition you presented.

As for Islam, I agree in principle with you that it shouldn't be vilified because of the actions of some small percentage of it's adherents. But...if the balance of Islam instead of a (relatively) few lone voices in the wilderness would join the world in calling these atrocities for what they are, that would go a long way towards that goal.

And why do we suppose that doesn't happen? Is it because secretly they support the actions, as some have claimed?

I don't believe that.

Apathy? Perhaps, at least to some degree, since it's a common human condition.

No, I believe (and evidence supports) that it's fear. Fear of reprisal against themselves, their families, loved ones and neighbors. And if we are to believe your postulate, the act of speaking up is KNOWN to 'incite violence', and thus that very act, while not as inflammatory as the one under discussion, carries with it some moral culpability for any ensuing carnage, right?

Wrong.
“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.”
Charles Darwin
#117
Quote by SlackerBabbath
It would be if rape victims 'knew' that their behaviour would result in their rape and 'intended' for their behaviour to result in their rape, which is essentialy what I've been arguing all along in the case of Jones.


A girl who goes out wearing 3 inch shorts and a boob tube and walks through a shitty neighbourhood 'knows' that her behaviour has the potential to result in her rape. The whole reason victim blaming is wrong is because the actions of the person acting within the law cannot be used as an excuse for illegal behaviour on the part of any mentally able person who committed an offense.

And here ladies and gentlemen is another part of the main problem, people like Todd Hart who simply assume that all people who follow Islam are the same, people who vilify the whole religion and assume that it's the whole religion that's to blame for acts of violence rather than a minority of people who carry out acts of violence in the name of a religion in contradiction to the teachings of the religion in question.


Islam is not the same as Muslims. To state that Islam is a religion and political movement currently that causes a great deal of violence, or to blame Islam for violence done in its name, is not to vilify all Muslims; much like saying that Communism caused a massive amount of suffering in the 20th century is not to vilify all Communists.

The religion itself isn't to blame, it's the people who try to use the religion in an attempt to justify their own vile actions that are to blame. But when someone comes along and purposely incites those same people into carrying out even more vile actions, they are obviously also partialy to blame.

No, blaming the whole religion for the actions of a minority of religious fundamentalists who actualy go against the teachings of the religion in question is not "calling a spade a spade", it's effectively calling every other tool in the shed a spade as well.


No. You simply cannot believe that it's possible or right to excuse or even slightly alleviate the blame of the murderer because the murderer was upset that somebody else had the right to burn his own property.

And you and I both know that religious texts are so woolly and hypocritical that it is impossible to claim either way that something is supported by or not supported by the religion. The issue is what people find as the meaning of a text, and a certain form of modern, politicised Islam clearly finds plenty of validation for committing violence. If one were to burn 3000 Bibles then nobody would die; but if one burns 3000 Qu'rans then someone very well might, and the person starting the conflagration would almost certainly have to be placed under security. This clearly points to the fact that Islam is an issue, certainly not all or even most Muslims, but when we have a religion whose adherents will gladly line the streets in their thousands in order to protest about a book, or a set of images, because they perceive an offense then it's clear that their ideology is the problem.


Spades aside, the simple fact is that the burden of the crime must lie entirely on the offender. If you give way on that point then all kinds of madness becomes possible. If I declare now that if Arby posts again then I'll go out and murder the nearest American would it be his fault if I did follow through on that threat? After all, he now has reason to believe that something bad will happen if he posts, just as this moronic preacher did. Or is the victim only to blame if his attacker has a history of violence?

Edit: Oh and for the love of God call me Todd!
...Stapling helium to penguins since 1949.
Last edited by Todd Hart at Sep 17, 2013,
#118
Quote by Arby911
And now you've apparently gone from arguing the legal merits to arguing the moral merits, which is disappointing because it's in effect a subject change in order to disguise the fact that you've been wrong all along.

No, it's an addition to the earlier 'legal merit' argument I was using rather than a constant repeating of the same argument over and over to deaf ears.

Oh, and that attempt at making it look like I was trying to disguise the fact that I've been wrong all along, rather than actualy putting forward a counter argument suggests that you don't actualy have a counter argument against the moral merits.
Quote by Arby911

Look, no one that I know has argued that his actions are savory or laudable, including me, so you might as well drop that line of thought. I understand your contention that he may have some level of moral culpability due to the egregious nature of his protest, although I'm sure opinions vary as to the exact degree, but then I've never argued otherwise.

Ahh, a disgruntled point of agreement.

Quote by Arby911
But I have consistently argued he had a legal right to do what he intended (excepting the manner in which he attempted it, which was apparently illegal for a reason unrelated to the discussion at hand.)

Yes you have, and I have consistently argued that theoreticaly America should have a legal right to prosecute him for what is obviously (after the military had informed him that his actions cause deaths and asked him to stop) purposeful incitement.
I have shown that American law states that "government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is directed to inciting, and is likely to incite imminent lawless action or constituted a 'clear and present danger'" and I have also shown that according to the American military, the things he does and says certainly constitute a "clear and present danger". So obviously according to American law there is some merit in a 'legal' argument against Jones' words and actions.

Quote by Arby911
I further find your dodge about 'terrorism' unworthy of someone of your intellect. You know as well as I that not only is the discussion of what actually constitutes terrorism ongoing, but that NO ONE discussing the subject rationally uses the puerile definition you presented.

What dodge? I defined terrorism as the "use of violent terror as a means of coercion" which, as I said before, is a pretty standard definition that I got from a dictionary. It's the definition that most people use.
Quote by Arby911

As for Islam, I agree in principle with you that it shouldn't be vilified because of the actions of some small percentage of it's adherents. But...if the balance of Islam instead of a (relatively) few lone voices in the wilderness would join the world in calling these atrocities for what they are, that would go a long way towards that goal.

And why do we suppose that doesn't happen? Is it because secretly they support the actions, as some have claimed?

I don't believe that.

Apathy? Perhaps, at least to some degree, since it's a common human condition.

No, I believe (and evidence supports) that it's fear. Fear of reprisal against themselves, their families, loved ones and neighbors. And if we are to believe your postulate, the act of speaking up is KNOWN to 'incite violence', and thus that very act, while not as inflammatory as the one under discussion, carries with it some moral culpability for any ensuing carnage, right?

Wrong.

Muslims constantly speak out against Islamic extremist violence, you just don't notice it, possibly because American media doesn't consider it as newsworthy as stories that highlight extremist violence.
Read this.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/qasim-rashid/do-you-even-hear-muslims-when-we-condemn-violence_b_3125564.html

Did you even know that just 3 days ago the World Head of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Jamaat and Fifth Khalifa, 'Hazrat Mirza Masroor Ahmad', said this in a press release?

“The Quran has deemed Muslims as the ‘best of mankind’ but what good are the Muslim leaders doing in today’s world? They neither have a sense of compassion, nor of love and they do not follow Islam’s true teachings. There is no sense of honour in them and they seek help from outsiders only so that they can continue to kill their own brethren.”

Quote by Todd Hart
A girl who goes out wearing 3 inch shorts and a boob tube and walks through a shitty neighbourhood 'knows' that her behaviour has the potential to result in her rape. The whole reason victim blaming is wrong is because the actions of the person acting within the law cannot be used as an excuse for illegal behaviour on the part of any mentally able person who committed an offense.

You cannot compare a rape victim to someone who openly insults with the purpose of inciting violence against others. You are of course right in saying why 'victim' blaming is wrong, but Jones isn't a 'victim', until someone actualy physicaly attacks or kills Jones himself he's just a manipulator of violence against others.
Quote by Todd Hart

Islam is not the same as Muslims.

I think I'll just leave that golden nugget as it is because that line does your own argument more harm than it does to mine.
Quote by Todd Hart

No. You simply cannot believe that it's possible or right to excuse or even slightly alleviate the blame of the murderer because the murderer was upset that somebody else had the right to burn his own property.

When someone incites someone else into violence, it doesn't excuse or even slightly alleviate the blame of the violent person, it simply adds another guilty party to the overall crime.
Look, consider this a moment. When a person is found guilty of commiting a crime, he gets condemned to a certain sentence, right? Let's say the crime is murder and the sentence is 30 years. But if someone had been found guilty of inciting him into commiting murder, it wouldn't cause the murderer to have a shorter sentence, it would just cause the inciter to also be condemned and sentenced. His sentence may not be the same as the sentence of the murderer, but it still wouldn't alleviate the blame of the murderer and thus shorten the murderer's sentence.

Quote by Todd Hart
And you and I both know that religious texts are so woolly and hypocritical that it is impossible to claim either way that something is supported by or not supported by the religion. The issue is what people find as the meaning of a text, and a certain form of modern, politicised Islam clearly finds plenty of validation for committing violence. If one were to burn 3000 Bibles then nobody would die; but if one burns 3000 Qu'rans then someone very well might, and the person starting the conflagration would almost certainly have to be placed under security. This clearly points to the fact that Islam is an issue

No it doesn't, it clearly points to the fact that Islamic 'extremism' is an issue, it clearly points to the fact that those who would willingly choose to consider that the Qur'an validates violence are an issue, not Islam as a whole.
You used the term 'politicised Islam', which makes an interesting point, the violence is 'politicaly' motivated rather than actualy being religiously motivated, it's just that the extremists attempt to use a completely wrong interpretation of the religion in an attempt to justify their political view. I've actualy read the Qur'an and I can catigoricaly state that it clearly only validates violence in self defence or the defence of innocents against 'physical' violence, not against those that are merely critical of Islam.

Quote by Todd Hart
Spades aside, the simple fact is that the burden of the crime must lie entirely on the offender. If you give way on that point then all kinds of madness becomes possible. If I declare now that if Arby posts again then I'll go out and murder the nearest American would it be his fault if I did follow through on that threat? After all, he now has reason to believe that something bad will happen if he posts, just as this moronic preacher did.

It would partialy be his fault, but it wouldn't alleviate any of your blame either.

Quote by Todd Hart
Or is the victim only to blame if his attacker has a history of violence?

Unless the nearest American that you muder was actualy Arby himself, he wouldn't be a victim, he'd be someone who incited someone else to murder an innocent.

Look, America (and Britain) currently has laws against cyberbullying. When someone verbaly encourages someone else to commit suicide and if it actualy results in a person's suicide they can be arrested, charged, prosecuted and sentenced for a crime. So shouldn't it follow that if someone encourages someone else to commit murder it should also be a crime?
If you declare now that if Arby posts again then you'll go out and murder the nearest American, and if Arby posts again knowing your intent, then surely he's effectively encouraging you to commit said murder?

Quote by Todd Hart


Edit: Oh and for the love of God call me Todd!

OK, I will, even though I'm an atheist.
Last edited by SlackerBabbath at Sep 18, 2013,
#119
If you declare now that if Arby posts again then you'll go out and murder the nearest American, and if Arby posts again knowing your intent, then surely he's effectively encouraging you to commit said murder?


So in this scenario, you would arrest and charge the guy who posted? Is that what you're saying?
Quote by Overlord
It's not hard to be nice, but it's nice to be hard
#120
Quote by Carnivean
So in this scenario, you would arrest and charge the guy who posted? Is that what you're saying?

Yes I would, because he could effectively be considered as encouraging Todd to commit the murder that he'd already threatened to commit, which under the law of 'complicity' is illegal in both America and Britain. Of course, it'd then be up to a jury to decide if he was actualy guilty of the crime or not.

It's the same as if someone threatens to commit suicide online, if you encourage them to carry it out then you can be charged with complicity.