If you’re looking for the line it’s an inch wide. Inciting someone to anger ends with someone in your face. It’s not the other side of town and it sure as hell isn’t 6000 miles away in a newspaper.
I’m not claiming a moral high ground for them, I’m just saying they’re not as bad as people who murder other people.
You said that " Westboro hasn’t killed anyone… a hugh moral difference" as if hate speech and acts could not cause violence or murder? Westboro are insane, but the super insane KKK presents itself as a white patriotic christian group, complete with christian youth conferences, christian revival meetings, and bible study camps, yet no one can dispute their home grown penchant for hate, and history of violence and murder.
Westboro may not be responsible for killings as of yet, but thats not to say they wont try to be. Hate provocation kills, and burning a Koran, may have been seen as an act of hate, although I have come to believe it probably was just stupid bungling.
www.kkk.com/
The Westboro Baptist crowd is scum The KKK members are scum. That said, it’s one thing to hold vile beliefs and write them on signs. It’s quite another to kill people. Whether you’re a member of the KKK or a follower of Islam. The notion that the color of a man’s skin justifies you hanging them because he spoke to a white woman and that someone’s being CHristian justifies you killing them because they defiled your holy book is equally repugnant and unacceptable. Wait—I’ll have to make that particular strain of Islamic assholedom worse, because they’re not even killing the people who the the defiling.
Bottom line. you can have vile thoughts. You can share those vile thoughts. You express those vile thoughts by assaulting or killing someone—whole 'nother kettle of fish.
Irrationality isn’t the deciding factor. It’s predictability. The two often intersect, since usually one of the working definitions of irrationality is unpredictability. But if we can predict what irrational behaviour will ensue, then responsibility, in part, can be assigned.
A psychopath will act irrationally, but if we know in advance that if given a weapon they will proceed to shoot the place up, I don’t hold any responsibility if I give him a gun? If my friend is a recovering alcoholic, and I ask him to look after my wine cellar while i’m away on holiday, I don’t hold any responsibility if he starts drinking again? An animal will inherently act irrationally, at least by human standards; if I set free a lion from a zoo, and it proceeds to attack nearby visitors, i’m in the free and clear, right?
So long as you don’t cross a state lion for immortal porpoises, yes.
What if you’re not giving him a gun? What if you play your accordion, and due to the psychopath’s intense hatred of the instrument, that sends him into a killing spree? What if he’s a homophobe, and he starts killing people because he sees a gay couple holding hands?
What the US has done is not handing a psychopath or an animal the means to cause harm. What the US has done is something perfectly reasonable that happens to offend a madman.
Unless you think the world should be a de facto dictatorship with the rights of the majority curtailed by the insane demands of the lowest common denominator, it is unreasonable to assign blame to anyone but the perpetrators and those who are deliberately exploiting their zealotry.
The same thing applies. I chose my examples because they’re along the lines of more obvious predictability. The amount of psychopaths who are driven to kill by accordions is probably not that high, though it would personally drive me to annoyance. If you simply happen to play the accordion, unaware of it being this particular psychopath’s bete noir, then no responsiblity lies on you. If, however, you somehow knew in advance - then yes, you’re partially responsible. You knew what would happen, and merely chose to put your love of accordion music above that risk.
It’s not the means that’s the problem; I should’ve gone for some different examples. It’s the cause, essentially, and more than that the knowing cause.
I’m not entirely sure where you’re getting that because I assign responsiblity I am therefore saying such things should be curtailed. I would not, for example, ban accordion music, or gay people holding hands, or, indeed, the burning of Qurans. It would be nice if we could simply wash our hands of all actions undertaken by irrational people. But if we can predict their irrationality - if we know that our actions will or may cause unpleasant responses, even if those responses are unreasonable, not the actions of sane or just people - and we elect to do them anyway, then, unfairly, unreasonably, but truthfully, we take on some responsiblity.
You can’t negate known consequences just because you’d like to.
Now the fun spreads to Libya, rioters desecrate a British war cemetry.
The paper idols weren’t even burnt by the British.
Why are people in the UK upset about this? All they did was knock over some pieces of stone.
What’s the big deal?
They’re kinda touchy about the whole Stonehenge thing. But these are not the Druids you are looking for.
I deserve that reply 
We didn’t hand a weapon to anybody. That is truly a bad argument to make. But psychopath does describe the behavior.
I believe at the time we were helping the Libyans I asked who exactly we were supporting.
That comment is moronic.
Libya is a country of millions. Obviously some them are yahoos, but there’s no reason to think the behavior observed was representative of the majority
Moreover, what’s the big deal about knocking over some carved pieces of stone.
Please don’t tell me you give a shit about them.
Correction: The Daily Mail is upset. The UK as a whole don’t really care that much. We expect this sort of behaviour in those parts of the world. And we have our own thuggish element desecrating Jewish graves which we’re much more unhappy about.
Not heard about it.
It’s an example, mate. I don’t claim the two things are exactly similar - in fact I provided varying other examples, which you seem to have intentionally cut out from that quote, alas, but which are also most assuredly not the exact same situation as the one under discussion. The point of the examples is to try and highlight that the principle behind them is the same.
Since your only objection was to the idea of using examples, should I conclude you’re in agreement with the principle? It would be helpful if you were to actually answer the questions I posed.
The big deal is that the stones honor those who fought and died for our freedoms. Apparently the irony of Libyans spitting on their memory only months after NATO helped them is lost on you.
Well that’s pretty much what examples are for, to draw parallels to. I think you’re having a problem coming up with a good example because there isn’t one.
To answer your question, no you’re not responsible for your alcoholic friend if you entrust him to your wine cellar. I know a fair few alcoholics who go weekly to their favorite bar and do not drink. They go to listen to music and be with friends. Had they gone off the wagon it would have been all on them..
You have yet to come up with a reason to curb our freedoms because somebody objects to them. My whole life is one big objectionable rallying point for religions who don’t like wine women and song (along with a good pork roast). None of the rioting triggers were the result of someone kicking the door of a mosque down and crapping on Islam.
Oh please, they’re just pieces of rock that are around 70 years old.
What’s next, getting upset at American soldiers for burning pieces of paper?