I’m sorry, who urged vengeance again?
This section is both stupid and offensive.
It’s stupid because there is no inconsistency between thinking that he shouldn’t have done it, on the one hand, and believing that he’s not responsible for the deaths, on the other. While i wouldn’t use the word “tacky” as you did, i will say that the main reason he shouldn’t have done it, in my view, is that i try to live my life by the principle that you don’t always have to be a dick just because you can be. That’s why he shouldn’t have done it. But i think that his right to do it (whether i agree with him or not) is, as Oakminster said, an important part of our culture, and not to be dismissed or ridiculed just because some crazy fucks on the other side of the world used it an an excuse for barbarity.
And it’s offensive because you imply that, because i disagree with you on this issue, i must be dismissive (“meh”) about the 12 murders in Afghanistan. I am as outraged about the murders in Afghanistan as you are; i just don’t share your beliefs about where responsibility lies.
If you’re going to paint me as someone who doesn’t care about the murders, i’m not very interested in continuing this discussion. It’s reminiscent of the accusations, back in 2003, that those who opposed the war were also supporters of Saddam Hussein.
Sorry, I should have made it clear that the “meh” was in regards to whatever Jones did wrong, not to the murders themselves. In other words, are the horrible consequences of his actions really not a factor in your (or someone else’s) condemnation of said actions? There are good logical reasons for that not to be the case, and it’s intuitively bizarre, besides.
Why is everyone ignoring this? It’s the most valid point in this thread. Where do we draw the line of blaming people for what other people do because of their actions? Why is this guy over the line, while others wouldn’t be?
And where are all the people who condoned making drawings of Mohammed? Where are the people who got upset about South Park’s 200th episode? If people had been killed for that, would it have been Matt and Trey’s fault? We sure didn’t seem to think so then.
Oh, I wouldn’t say a complete lack. I agree there wasn’t a strong likelihood of imminent violence, but the outcome of Jones’ actions were blatantly obvious and dangerous.
If there is some greater good to be achieved by the offensive action, you can make a moral justification for it. I could almost buy it if Jones’ intent was to show that the Quran is not a thing to be worshiped but is merely a book of teachings (which is funny from a Christian, but of course there’s different schools of thought). Instead, Jones delivered the equivalent of fighting words.
I’m not exactly wholly invested in this, as the relative lack of immediacy makes the case weaker, but it’s absurd to say he bears zero moral responsibility.
I feel like I am posting valid points and am getting completely looked over.
takes HELLO MY NAME IS newb sign and trudges off
Sorry to keep going back like this, but I decided before to keep my last post simple, and now have changed my mind a bit.
Yes, it can be consistent to condemn the book burning and absolve Jones of blame for the deaths, but only if you disavow “danger to others” as one of the reasons to condemn the burning. But why would you do that? The likely or possible consequences of his actions are morally relevant, no?
Qin’s examples are different because, first, the people are accepting a risk to themselves, and, second, because there’s something clearly righteous or worthwhile about what they want to do that acts as a counterweight.
Can’t speak for anyone else, but I think your examples are, ethically, a lot murkier (though still not obviously condemnable like Jones’ burning): there’s more danger to third parties involved; there’s some redeeming social value, but also a lot of purposeful provocation, etc. If those things had happened and resulted in violence, I wouldn’t judge the people involved *too *harshly, but nor would I say that they could completely wipe their hands of the consequences.
If someone really wants to engage a hypothetical, I’d love to see an answer to Lobohan’s (post #23).
But it’s true. If he didn’t work at an abortion clinic he wouldn’t have been killed by someone who is killing abortion doctors.
When someone says someone deserves something that’s just the speaker being a sneaky snake and attributing his personal wishes to some grand karmic system. It doesn’t mean anything. But seriously, the Celtics deserve to win the title this year.
Never Mind.
Gay people are just living their lives, of course. The authors mentioned are making art and commentary; if offense is taken from their works it’s incidental to the message. Burning a Qur’an as Jones did has no expressive content that I’ve been able to discern, or anyone to articulate, except hatred and contempt for Islam and Muslims.
Yes, he has the legal right to express that. That doesn’t make it right to do so.
I’m surprised to see phrases like “just expression” and “only words” here… as if there was anything more potent in human culture than ideas.
This is the classic argument for political censorship.
The presumption in the United States is that you can think and say anything you want, as long as your actions do not violate someone’s rights. At least it used to be. Nowadays people have an unhealthy interest in the inner beliefs of others. They are more concerned with what your actions suggest about your thoughts than the other way around.
I agree Jones is a jackass, but the response is showing me the point needs to be made that we are a free society, and we won’t change it for evil subhuman murdering sociopathic evil trash, nor religious intolerance to that freedom.
That is the idea stupid extremists need to get through their thick heads. The evilness of delusions they follow won’t change that. They’re gonna have to coexist with people who aren’t slaves and whores like they are, whether they like or it or not.
They want to censor us, and we’ll burn more Korans in protest. Domestic extremist want to censor us and we’ll burn flags in protest. Same shit, same response.
Oh, please. That’s just us capitulating to a Christian fanatic who wants to whip up religious hatred between Americans and Muslims. That’s us going along with religious intolerance, not nobly fighting against it like you are trying to pretend. But then, I guess Christian religious intolerance is somehow morally superior to Muslim religious intolerance.
Everyone who is pro Jones needs to realize that yes, we should have the right to burn whatever books we want. But as it happens every time we do, a small group of assholes is going to murder someone. It’s easy to say whatever you want about freedom, but the murdered people don’t care. And if it’s your son, daughter, brother, sister, mom, dad or whatever who gets murdered you wouldn’t care either.
The rioters are at fault. The Imams are at fault. And the shitbag who poked them with a stick is at fault.
It’s not like he needs to burn Korans for warmth or anything. He’s choosing to specifically slap a billion people in the face, knowing that some small percentage will murder someone because of it. He’s doing this because he wants all billion of them to be painted as outrageous killers, when it’s actually a hundred guys that went off their nut.
First, I don’t think anyone is necessarily “pro Jones”, just that the guilt for the deaths lie with those who did the killing. But here’s a question: do you think that if some asshole in Iran burned a bible tomorrow that it would result in killings and beheadings? Or if they burned a talmud? Or the holy writings for Buddhists, Hindus, or those who are Shinto?
I think that for the vast majority of Christianities history yes, it would have gotten you killed. Not by some yahoos but by the authorities.
That’s the problem. Much of the Muslim world exists in primitive countries. In Afghanistan a lot of their society is still medieval. So assuming they will act like first worlders is pretty stupid.
But as I say, Jones has no ability to stop the few that will kill for a slight to Islam. So they are simply going to keep happening and there is blood on his hands.
Also, it’s my understanding that Muslims believe that the Koran is directly transcribed by God without filter (I assume that think that Mohammed recited verbatim what he heard). Thus they think it’s a bit more holy than the bible. This, I think would be similar to the desecration of the communion crackers in that earlier thread.
While I don’t agree with most of what you wrote here, it drives me nuts when a defense is mounted in terms of, "oh, well it’s just like Christianity was 2,000 years ago, or any other religion of that time. WHO CARES? We’re not living back then. We also don’t give a shit about how the Greeks and Mayans made human sacrifices to their gods. Why? Because it has no bearing on the world we live in. Islam has got to get with the program called civilization. It shouldn’t be excused in any way. It’s one thing to give an 18-month old slack when he pulls the cat’s tail or puts his hand in the dog’s ear, it’s quite another when the kid has turned 16. We should all be insisting that Islam join civilization or it will be ostracized. You want to play in the civilized playground, great, behave accordingly. If not, go embrace your barbarism back in your own shitty sandbox.
I know it’s not your intent, but every time you or anyone else brings up the violence and ignorance of religions 2,000 years ago you inadvertently excuse bad behavior that should be given no quarter.
More like 300 years ago.
You do know that Christians in primitive countries still burn witches, right? It’s the society that sucks, not the religion.
Again, you need to note that the problem is shitty primitive countries, not Islam itself.
I don’t excuse the behavior, but I blame it on ignorance and poverty, not which imaginary friend makes it rain.
Complaints about religious intolerance is something I never would have thought would come fromDer Trihs. Would it be okay to rip a picture of the Pope on national television to piss off Catholics?