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

Page 4 of 9
#121
Quote by Rossenrot
Burning books isn't inciting violence. It's burning books.
wow it's like you have no comprehension of what meaning a book may carry
they're coming to take me away
ha-haaa
#122
Quote by SlackerBabbath
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.


I dont know Arby, but I contact him and tell him that if he doesn't show up at the local ice cream shop at 5pm today then I will kill myself. 5:00 comes and Arby, despite knowing my intentions, doesn't show. I kill myself.

Do you arrest and charge Arby in this scenario too?
Quote by Overlord
It's not hard to be nice, but it's nice to be hard
#123
Quote by Banjocal
wow it's like you have no comprehension of what meaning a book may carry


It's amazing how so many people on here claim the uselessness and fraud of a religious text, yet when someone burns those same texts, they claim that there is an injustice to be paid for, and that there is few insults worse than burning those texts.

"It's a silly fantasy story, but don't you burn it!"
Quote by Overlord
It's not hard to be nice, but it's nice to be hard
#124
I think Slacker is correct, and can't really see what's so damn contentious about it. However, the walls of text being posted are intimidating me somewhat, as well as bringing out my laziness. So don't expect me to explain why. Here is some lead white for moral support.

#125
Quote by Carnivean
I dont know Arby, but I contact him and tell him that if he doesn't show up at the local ice cream shop at 5pm today then I will kill myself. 5:00 comes and Arby, despite knowing my intentions, doesn't show. I kill myself.

Do you arrest and charge Arby in this scenario too?


No. Because that would be you trying to coerce him into an action that he may not want to take part in, so him simply refusing to be coerced by you would not make it his fault if you killed yourself, the blame would be entirely your own.
If he had encouraged you to commit suicide, that would be a different thing.

Quote by Carnivean
It's amazing how so many people on here claim the uselessness and fraud of a religious text, yet when someone burns those same texts, they claim that there is an injustice to be paid for, and that there is few insults worse than burning those texts.

"It's a silly fantasy story, but don't you burn it!"

It's not about what we think of the text, it's about knowing what others think about it and what constitues a blatent intentional insult.

Quote by JoeSaunders
I think Slacker is correct, and can't really see what's so damn contentious about it. However, the walls of text being posted are intimidating me somewhat, as well as bringing out my laziness. So don't expect me to explain why. Here is some lead white for moral support.


Thanks, although I prefer titanium white myself.
Last edited by SlackerBabbath at Sep 18, 2013,
#126
Quote by Carnivean
It's amazing how so many people on here claim the uselessness and fraud of a religious text, yet when someone burns those same texts, they claim that there is an injustice to be paid for, and that there is few insults worse than burning those texts.

"It's a silly fantasy story, but don't you burn it!"
Religiousness is fundamentally based around faith and not logic, but that does not mean you can insult thousands of people's beliefs by burning something held sacred without expecting repercussions. When it involves a situation in which people may be seriously hurt, you are the catalyst. Te fault is also with those instigating and perpetuating the violence but the person to start it still holds some responsibility

strawman. I did not say that.

Religion is a really important thing to many people. I don't particularly follow it (though some of the history behind it is fascinating) but if it's something someone devotes their life to and holds dear to them, burning something that holds all the semantics of that belief is basically an incendiary "**** you, come get me".

It's not about the actual books, it's about what they hold, and by extension, how it will cause people to react. If you know you're about to cause a major shitstorm, you hold SOME responsibility. However, per the "come get me" thing, the people reacting to it are also guilty for rising to something so obviously a bait.
they're coming to take me away
ha-haaa
Last edited by Banjocal at Sep 18, 2013,
#127
Quote by SlackerBabbath
No. Because that would be you trying to coerce him into an action that he may not want to take part in, so him simply refusing to be coerced by you would not make it his fault if you killed yourself, the blame would be entirely your own.
If he had encouraged you to commit suicide, that would be a different thing.


But in your first scenario isn't the guy coercing Arby into not posting by saying that he'll kill himself if he posts?
Quote by Overlord
It's not hard to be nice, but it's nice to be hard
#128
Quote by Carnivean
But in your first scenario isn't the guy coercing Arby into not posting by saying that he'll kill himself if he posts?

An action is always easier to prosecute than an inaction.
You can prosecute someone for something they did, but it's next to impossible to prosecute someone for something they didn't do, unless of course a valid negligence case could be brought against them.
#129
Quote by SlackerBabbath
An action is always easier to prosecute than an inaction.
You can prosecute someone for something they did, but it's next to impossible to prosecute someone for something they didn't do, unless of course a valid negligence case could be brought against them.


Fine Slacker, what if I told Arby that if he feeds his kids today, I will kill myself. Arby feeds his kids despite knowin this. I kill myself.

What then?
Quote by Overlord
It's not hard to be nice, but it's nice to be hard
#130
Quote by Carnivean
Fine Slacker, what if I told Arby that if he feeds his kids today, I will kill myself. Arby feeds his kids despite knowin this. I kill myself.

What then?

Firstly, why are you asking this?

Secondly, Arby wouldn't be at fault for feeding his kids, after all, it's his duty to feed his kids because the law demands that he either feeds his kids or be arrested for negligence so you would effectively be trying to coerce Arby into neglecting his children.
#131
Quote by Carnivean
Fine Slacker, what if I told Arby that if he feeds his kids today, I will kill myself. Arby feeds his kids despite knowin this. I kill myself.

What then?

they're coming to take me away
ha-haaa
#132
Quote by Carnivean
Fine Slacker, what if I told Arby that if he feeds his kids today, I will kill myself. Arby feeds his kids despite knowin this. I kill myself.

What then?

#133
Quote by SlackerBabbath
Firstly, why are you asking this?

Secondly, Arby wouldn't be at fault for feeding his kids, after all, it's his duty to feed his kids because the law demands that he either feeds his kids or be arrested for negligence so you would effectively be trying to coerce Arby into neglecting his children.


Arby has a wife who can feed the kids, too, but I ask specifically that Arby not feed them, or else ill kill myself. But its fine if the wife does. Arby still feeds his kids knowing this. I kill myself. You would still arrest Arby?

And you know good and well why I'm asking: because it exposes the blatant naivety and impracticality of your proposed policy.
Quote by Overlord
It's not hard to be nice, but it's nice to be hard
Last edited by Carnivean at Sep 18, 2013,
#134
Quote by Carnivean
Arby has a wife who can feed the kids, too, but I ask specifically that Arby not feed them, or else ill kill myself. But its fine if the wife does. Arby still feeds his kids knowing this. I kill myself. You would still arrest Arby?


I refuse to continue to be involved in your attempt to plot silly ways of trying to coerce Arby into a plausably arrestable offense.

I also refuse to get into a battle of wits with an obviously unarmed opponent.
Last edited by SlackerBabbath at Sep 18, 2013,
#135
Quote by SlackerBabbath
I refuse to continue to be involved in your attempt to plot silly ways of trying to coerce Arby into a plausably arrestable offense.


Wow, for a man of what 40+ to 50+ years of age, who's presumably more mature than most everyone here including myself, you still cannot even do one of the most basic, honest of things which is to admit that you were wrong. Seriously, don't make a joke, just say it. You were wrong. Do what you know you should do, and admit it.
Quote by Overlord
It's not hard to be nice, but it's nice to be hard
#137
Quote by Carnivean
Wow, for a man of what 40+ to 50+ years of age, who's presumably more mature than most everyone here including myself, you still cannot even do one of the most basic, honest of things which is to admit that you were wrong. Seriously, don't make a joke, just say it. You were wrong. Do what you know you should do, and admit it.

47 actualy.

Wrong about what?
How on earth does you asking these ridiculous questions that bear little resemblence to my proposed policy expose any naivety and impracticality of my proposed policy?

Seriously, I thought you were just messing around, asking sillier and sillier questions for comedic effect, are you actualy telling me that you're being serious here?
#138
Quote by Carnivean
Wow, for a man of what 40+ to 50+ years of age, who's presumably more mature than most everyone here including myself, you still cannot even do one of the most basic, honest of things which is to admit that you were wrong. Seriously, don't make a joke, just say it. You were wrong. Do what you know you should do, and admit it.

If you think that your little examples bear the relevant features that characterise the book burning scenario, and Slacker's arguments, then think harder.
#139
Quote by SlackerBabbath
47 actualy.

Wrong about what?
How on earth does you asking these ridiculous questions that bear little resemblence to my proposed policy expose any naivety and impracticality of my proposed policy?

Seriously, I thought you were just messing around, asking sillier and sillier questions for comedic effect, are you actualy telling me that you're being serious here?


You answered every one of those questions with a reasoned response. And surely one would have to ask these types of questions if they were trying to pass this as a piece of legislation? If what I said was so irrelevant and silly then tell me why, don't just call it silly. Tell me exactly why. Please don't play dead with me and insult my intelligence.
Quote by Overlord
It's not hard to be nice, but it's nice to be hard
#140
I believe Carnivean is trying to show that basing Person A's charges off of Person B's actions is ridiculous.

That's essentially what you're doing, isn't it? In the first example, if Todd tells Arby that if Arby posts again, Todd will kill himself.

No one is forcing Todd to kill himself. Arby's actions, no matter how encouraging, aren't forcing Todd to do a thing. It's just silly to hold Arby responsible.
This ends now, eat the goddamn beans!
#141
Quote by Carnivean
Wow, for a man of what 40+ to 50+ years of age, who's presumably more mature than most everyone here including myself, you still cannot even do one of the most basic, honest of things which is to admit that you were wrong. Seriously, don't make a joke, just say it. You were wrong. Do what you know you should do, and admit it.

Uhm, a little advice :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAKG-kbKeIo
#142
Quote by Carnivean
You answered every one of those questions with a reasoned response. And surely one would have to ask these types of questions if they were trying to pass this as a piece of legislation?

No, I'd have to answer questions that were actualy related to the piece of legislation.

Quote by Carnivean
If what I said was so irrelevant and silly then tell me why, don't just call it silly. Tell me exactly why. Please don't play dead with me and insult my intelligence.


OK, As I said earlier, an action is always easier to prosecute than an inaction.
You can prosecute someone for something they did, but it's next to impossible to prosecute someone for something they didn't do, unless of course a valid negligence case could be brought against them.

In the case of Jones, he attempted to carry out an 'action' that was blatently designed to insult and incite violence towards 'others'. Your examples all involve someone's 'inaction' being regarded as someone somehow inciting someone else to harm 'themselves'.

They are entirely different things in two different counts and therefore irrelevent to the conversation.
#143
But you provided the first example with person A threatening person B by saying that person A will commit suicide if person B posts again. In my example, person A threatens person B by saying person A will commit suicide if person B feeds his kids (which he also has his wife for, so he has a choice). Posting. Feeding kids. Those are both actions, right? So both are essentially the same scenarios. However, you have determined that in YOUR example, person B attempted to carry out an action that was, in affect, encouraging suicide, while you have simply avoided making that same determination in my scenario.
Quote by Overlord
It's not hard to be nice, but it's nice to be hard
#144
Quote by Carnivean
But you provided the first example with person A threatening person B by saying that person A will commit suicide if person B posts again. In my example, person A threatens person B by saying person A will commit suicide if person B feeds his kids (which he also has his wife for, so he has a choice). Posting. Feeding kids. Those are both actions, right? So both are essentially the same scenarios. However, you have determined that in YOUR example, person B attempted to carry out an action that was, in affect, encouraging suicide, while you have simply avoided making that same determination in my scenario.


No, the first example was an action ('posting again') that might possibly be classed as 'complicity', the second example was an inaction that couldn't possibly be 'complicity', which is defined as the 'state of being involved with others in an illegal activity or wrongdoing'. You cannot be prosecuted for being complicit with an illegal activity through inaction because it's a contradiction in terms, unless the inactivity results in willful neglect.
#145
Quote by SlackerBabbath
No, the first example was an action ('posting again') that might possibly be classed as 'complicity', the second example was an inaction that couldn't possibly be 'complicity', which is defined as the 'state of being involved with others in an illegal activity or wrongdoing'. You cannot be prosecuted for being complicit with an illegal activity through inaction because it's a contradiction in terms, unless the inactivity results in willful neglect.


You did it here again. You post the specific determination in the first scenario, and avoid doing so in the second. You posted that the action in the first scenario is 'posting again', which you put in parentheses, and then you claim there is an inaction in the second scenario, but you do not include parentheses and give no indication of what the inaction literally is. So what EXACTLY is the inaction in that second scenario? What is person B not doing?

Also, this is sad that you're doing this.
Quote by Overlord
It's not hard to be nice, but it's nice to be hard
#146
What's painful here is that this is one of those cases where the person knows they're wrong, yet they continue to argue anyway.
Quote by Overlord
It's not hard to be nice, but it's nice to be hard
#147
Quote by Carnivean
I dont know Arby, but I contact him and tell him that if he doesn't show up at the local ice cream shop at 5pm today then I will kill myself. 5:00 comes and Arby, despite knowing my intentions, doesn't show. I kill myself.

Do you arrest and charge Arby in this scenario too?
Uh, no.

Every human on earth has a little, but important, gift called conceptual thought. Unlike animal behavior, which is entirely reflexive and instinctive, humans have the ability of conceptual thought. It is this fact that ruins your hypothetical.

You will ALWAYS have a choice and ability to make one and as long as that's the case, no one else should ever be held accountable for YOUR actions.
Quote by Carnivean
It's amazing how so many people on here claim the uselessness and fraud of a religious text, yet when someone burns those same texts, they claim that there is an injustice to be paid for, and that there is few insults worse than burning those texts.

"It's a silly fantasy story, but don't you burn it!"
A person is defined by their faith, simply because belief is a choice.

Religious texts could be 100% fact or fiction, but all religious texts are nothing more than inanimate objects, they can never hurt anyone.

The guy this thread is about is burning religious texts, which means that some people of said faith will take that as he burning them.

Again, he's allowed to dislike(to whatever degree) whatever religion, but he should either keep it to himself or voice that opinion in a way that hurts no one.

There is a Bible proverb early on in the Aramaic/Hebrew scrolls that would essentially condemn him and not who he is attacking.
#148
Quote by Carnivean
What's painful here is that this is one of those cases where the person knows they're wrong, yet they continue to argue anyway.

Look in your mirror.
#149
Quote by Carnivean
What is person B not doing?

Giving in to the demands of a single person who is clearly completely insane.
Person A is deliberately provoking a large group of people who are known for retaliating in a disproportionately large and incredibly violent manner.

Not that I'm saying person B should continue to feed his kids without question (what he should do is call the police and get person B arrested/sectioned, for which there is no equivalent with radical Islamists), but surely you can see the difference?
#150
Quote by SlackerBabbath
No, the first example was an action ('posting again') that might possibly be classed as 'complicity', the second example was an inaction that couldn't possibly be 'complicity', which is defined as the 'state of being involved with others in an illegal activity or wrongdoing'. You cannot be prosecuted for being complicit with an illegal activity through inaction because it's a contradiction in terms, unless the inactivity results in willful neglect.


The stretches you are having to make to keep this alive are worthy of Reed Richard himself.

Fun to watch though.
“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.”
Charles Darwin
#151
Quote by Arby911
The stretches you are having to make to keep this alive are worthy of Reed Richard himself.

Fun to watch though.
Slacker isn't stretching. If anything, condescending posts like this show that he's actually winning. Why not respond intellectually instead of critically?
#152
Quote by Arby911
The stretches you are having to make to keep this alive are worthy of Reed Richard himself.

Fun to watch though.


brb killing an American.

Can someone please phone the police and send them to Arby's house, damn guy's been inciting murder.
...Stapling helium to penguins since 1949.
#153
Quote by AllJudasPriest
Slacker isn't stretching. If anything, condescending posts like this show that he's actually winning. Why not respond intellectually instead of critically?


Yeah, ok, riiiiiight....

I've answered it repeatedly in a reasoned fashion so go whine elsewhere, Slacker can defend himself.
“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.”
Charles Darwin
#154
Its a book. They are his books. He can do whatever the hell he wants with them. If he wants to put anything about me in a book then burn it he can. Anything I believe in AT ALL. He can write down and burn. You'll find me not giving a hoot.

Time on earth is like butterscotch; you really want more, even though it will probably just make you ill.



Certified lurker
#155
Quote by Arby911
Yeah, ok, riiiiiight....

I've answered it repeatedly in a reasoned fashion so go whine elsewhere, Slacker can defend himself.
Yes he can. I'm whining?
#156
Quote by Carnivean
Fine Slacker, what if I told Arby that if he feeds his kids today, I will kill myself. Arby feeds his kids despite knowin this. I kill myself.

What then?

We party?


http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/09/18/20546485-the-rainbow-belongs-to-god-anti-gay-us-pastor-sets-sights-on-sochi-olympics?lite&ocid=msnhp&pos=1

Similar but different.
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.
#157
Omg Jackal if you don't tell me I'm the sexiest UGer ever I'm gounna kiill a baby and it's all your fault
they're coming to take me away
ha-haaa
#158
Quote by AllJudasPriest

You will ALWAYS have a choice and ability to make one and as long as that's the case, no one else should ever be held accountable for YOUR actions.


So you disagree with Slacker then?

Good, so do I....

Quote by AllJudasPriest
Again, he's allowed to dislike(to whatever degree) whatever religion, but he should either keep it to himself or voice that opinion in a way that hurts no one.


Who decides? Define "hurts"?
“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.”
Charles Darwin
#159
Quote by Banjocal
Omg Jackal if you don't tell me I'm the sexiest UGer ever I'm gounna kiill a baby and it's all your fault

I hate babies you ugly fuck.
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.
#160
Quote by SlackerBabbath
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.


You are arguing intent that you can't prove, which invalidates your contention.

Net effect and intent are not the same, regardless of your attempt to conflate them.

Yes, in many cases active incitement can be grounds for criminal charges, but unless you can prove that the action/words were directly and materially intended to incite a specific criminal act there is no crime.

Undertaking a legal action that may (or even WILL) offend others is never grounds for an incitement charge.

Pissing people off, regardless of degree, is not sufficient to bring charges.

Which is why groups like the KKK can legally march/demonstrate, even though there is no question that their message is inflammatory.

As a matter of law, the responsibility for any criminal actions undertaken by an aggrieved party lie solely and exclusively on the perpetrators of said actions and not on the issuer of the allegedly offensive speech.

I recognize that is not the case in the UK, but it is in the US, your disagreement and distaste notwithstanding.

Quote by Jackal58
I hate babies you ugly fuck.


Slacker's goons are on the way to arrest you for incitement...
“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.”
Charles Darwin
Last edited by Arby911 at Sep 18, 2013,