Back up. “Apologists”? Either you don’t know what that word means, or you don’t understand the point that folks are making.
Yes, and it’s been made multiple times in this thread. I’ve phrased it as “asshole moves,” talking about behavior that has no redeeming value and that might lead to violence vs. behavior that has redeeming value and that might lead to violence. Jones’s behavior was the former; his critics’ behavior is the latter.
Why is it different? Is it the intent of the person acting? Because I don’t give a crap about their intent: I give a crap about the foreseeable consequences of your actions. To do otherwise is silly, IMO: whether the violence is the intended primary effect, or just a predictable side-effect, makes no difference to the victims of the violence; they don’t die saying, “Well, at least Pastor Jones didn’t want me to get killed.”
I’m going to try to rephrase what you said; if I’m wrong, please correct me.
It appears that you’re saying an incitement to violence more predictably leads to violence than burning a Koran does, and that that’s the relevant difference between the two that makes the incitement worse than the burning.
Is this correct?
It’s close. Incitement to violence is still wrong, even if it doesn’t lead to violence, in case that wasn’t clear. And burning a Koran is not an incitement to violence, even if unreasonable people interpret it that way.
Regards,
Shodan
So it sounds as if intent is key for you–is this right? And that unintended but predictable side-effects bear little if any moral weight?
Close enough for government work. But the fuzzy part is that if something is predictable, it is harder to argue that causing it was unintentional.
And, for the purposes of assigning moral weight, the standard is what is reasonable. It is not reasonable to kill someone because someone else burned a flag, or a Koran.
To go back to the Nazi example, if I say “there are Jews in my attic” to a storm trooper, I can be pretty sure he is going to kill the Jews. If I burn a Koran in the US, I cannot be reasonably sure that some Islamofascist jerk is going to kill somebody else.
And what I would speak against is the notion that we should stop doing things that cannot reasonably be seen to lead to killing, on the off chance that some nutcase will react badly. That is the “lowest common denominator” thing I mentioned before.
Maybe it will be clearer if I flip an earlier example. I support(ed) the building of the Islamic center near the site in NYC of 9/11. I did so in part because it was a big “Fuck You” to al Queda and their ilk. It was also a big “Fuck You” to people who held all Muslims responsible for 9/11. Even if those who blamed all Muslims for 9/11 would riot or protest, I still supported it, even though there was a risk of violence.
Same thing with flag-burning. There is a risk that some people will riot if I burn the American flag in protest of something or other. But that doesn’t mean I shouldn’t do it, or that I am to blame if someone gets killed.
Reasonable people should not, IOW, allow themselves to be held hostage by the actions of unreasonable people.
If that helps.
Regards,
Shodan
This makes sense. One of the major differences IMO, is the fact that Jones had proposed this before and credible people had warned him of the very real possibility of this inciting violence and putting innocents in danger. I have a hard time thinking he didn’t know it was a real possibility. Didn’t secretary Gates call him, and General Pretreus make a clear statement?
I also agree with this. There has to be a consistent message about the concept of free speech and appropriate response. IMO, that doesn’t relieve Jones or others from their responsibility to not make a bad situation worse. Standing up for a principle doesn’t excuse everything, even when the principle is sound. Needlessly and knowingly endangering others for that feeble an expression is a good example.
Again, I agree, but because of the details, I don’t consider Jones to be a reasonable person in this case. A reasonable person would have heeded the warnings and not done it.
As cosmosdan pointed out, Jones got expert advice that Bad Things were likely to happen if he did this. Maybe our disagreement is on whether those Bad Things were predictable. I think they were.
Absolutely not, which is why I totally think the murderers should be brought to justice, and the Koran’s burning should not be an ameliorating circumstance at their trial. Their guilt is in no wise lessened by Jones’s act.
Their act was not reasonable. It was, however, predictable. And that, I think, is the means by which we assign blame. Consider giving a gun to a baby. It’s not reasonable for the baby to pull the trigger, but it’s predictable. Consider telling a violent drunk homophobe that the dude at the other end of the bar is gay. It’s not reasonable for the homophobe to beat the dude up, but it’s predictable.
And this is where my “asshole moves” theory comes in. Even if it was very clear that, say, Aryan Nations might kill someone if the center was built near Ground Zero, building the center serves some positive value in the world. It’s dangerous to let extremists threaten us out of doing things with positive value, because it gives them a rational strategy for making the world in their shitty image.
To use another example: I don’t really have a problem with flag-burners. I think it’s kind of a jerky move, but I don’t care too much about it. But if there were a group of skinheads that, every time a flag got burned, went and curb-stomped a hippie, I’d tell the flag burners they should knock it the fuck off.
Right, and although telling him, does not remove his responsibility in any way, it also doesn’t remove the responsibility of the person who, being smart enough to predict potential harm to others, told him anyway.
and, to address another aspect, the need to take a stand against his homophobia still remains a moral imperative.
So you consider Koran-burning to be the action of a reasonable person. Okaaayyyy …
I’m curious to see how long it will be until that shitstain causes a death on American soil.
For example, he wants to protest in front of a large mosque in Michigan on Good Friday, and says that he will be armed.
How many weasel words can you waste on a crackpot dumbass?
http://lmliberty.us/2011/04/22/koran-burning-pastor-fires-accidental-shot-in-detroit/#axzz1KH8xqqHO
I don’t see how you can assign responsibility (moral or otherwise) to a certifiable nutjob. He just need to be locked up so he’s no longer a threat to himself or anyone else.
Jones was in court this morning. He wants to protest in front of a huge mosque in Dearborn. He says if they stop him now, he will come back later.
The best that could happen is he protests and nobody notices. But the police have to be there and camera crews will be there. And he will get what he wants.
If I were in charge of the Dearborn PD, I think I’d pass. It shouldn’t be their responsibility to ensure the safety of every nutjob that comes to Dearborn and wants to do something stupid. Let Jones hire private protection if he thinks he’s in danger. Or how about just not doing stupid things?
Is an accidental discharge in public grounds for revoking a concealed carry permit?
Most municipalities have ordinances regarding unlawful firearms discharge. An accidental or negligent discharge which does no damage or injury may or may not be covered, depending on the specifics of the law in question. Since the Detroit police apparently are not charging the imbecile with any firearms violation at this time, I assume this not to be the case. He likely carries multiple permits because of his travels, and I believe MI is one of the more difficult states to get one anyway, so…
After all, being stupid is not strictly speaking “illegal.”
Call me simple, but I figure that for a Koran burner to carry a gun to a religious protest in front of a large mosque is not a good idea.
Looks like the Court had the same concerns:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hBbkGaq8cvN6PLH0yFfz3zxiFxdg?docId=CNG.318cd832fb27826ef578afac8e0b0268.2e1
http://www.icofa.com/ The mosque is a beautiful building,. It is huge.
If Jones had a rally there, somebody would have done something wrong. That is all it would take for Jones to get what he wanted.
Not to derail the conversation, but if you know where he got that jacket, could you[thread=605861] let me know[/thread]?
I’m disappointed that Dearborn chose to pursue this. I think they’ve now potentially blown it up into a referendum on free speech rights instead of letting the little jackass have his to-do yesterday and go the hell home. This kind of attention is exactly what he wanted, why give it to him? And while I’m not against the idea of insisting that people who want to incite a riot pay for the security that’s going to be needed to keep things in check, I was opposed to “free speech zones” when Bush did it, and I’m opposed to it on principle now.
Plus, it was 40 degrees and raining yesterday. You wanna hold a protest? Go ahead. Knock yourself out. The locals are smart enough to stay inside.
And reading about how he accidentally shot a hole in his own car just makes me snicker every time I think about it. I am surprised he wasn’t charged with reckless discharge of a firearm or anything.