Wilber Posted April 5, 2011 Report Posted April 5, 2011 Responsible for burning his own book? Sure, but why would that cause rational people anywhere to kill somebody? Who's talking about rational people? There is nothing rational about any of this. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
jbg Posted April 5, 2011 Report Posted April 5, 2011 We have? Somebody here claims that the pastor is responsible / culpable...now who would say such a silly thing? Who's talking about rational people? There is nothing rational about any of this. But do we gear policy (other than running mental hospitals) towards the needs of irrational people? Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
Oleg Bach Posted April 5, 2011 Report Posted April 5, 2011 Clearly is was produced and paid for in some manner. Why print Qu'rans if there is the possibility that some crazy guy in Saskatoon may burn it...yet another person to blame for the mob murders in Afghanistan. I wonder where the paper came from? Okay - so I sent you a few trees...how the hell did I know they were going to turn them into Korans? Still the guy is an asshole - we and you should have anti- asshole laws. Quote
Saipan Posted April 5, 2011 Report Posted April 5, 2011 I guess you must be good with anyone burning an American flag as long as they paid for it. Do you think they should be killed? Quote
Saipan Posted April 5, 2011 Report Posted April 5, 2011 Okay - so I sent you a few trees...how the hell did I know they were going to turn them into Korans? Still the guy is an asshole - we and you should have anti- asshole laws. Here it's freedom for anyone, even for those who YOU consider asses. Otherwise we would be living in Soviet Union. With only one official opinion. Quote
Oleg Bach Posted April 5, 2011 Report Posted April 5, 2011 Here it's freedom for anyone, even for those who YOU consider asses. Otherwise we would be living in Soviet Union. With only one official opinion. What makes you think that opinions are real or important. At least in the former Soviet Union...they made it clear that your opinion meant nothing - In America they allow everyone to have an opinion and listen to none. Quote
Wilber Posted April 5, 2011 Report Posted April 5, 2011 But do we gear policy (other than running mental hospitals) towards the needs of irrational people? This wasn't policy, it was a nutbar poking a stick at a rottweiler. Unfortunately the dog attacked someone else. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
Guest American Woman Posted April 5, 2011 Report Posted April 5, 2011 (edited) I guess you must be good with anyone burning an American flag as long as they paid for it. Hallelujah! You finally get it. People in other countries, including Canada, do burn the American flag. As far as I've seen, no one in any other nation has suggested that it shouldn't be done because it hurts some Americans' feelings, and no Americans have ever rioted or killed a single person over it; and if they had, the blame worldwide, including the U.S., would go exactly where it belongs -- on the Americans who did the rioting and killing. You know that's true as well as I do. Edited April 5, 2011 by American Woman Quote
Guest American Woman Posted April 5, 2011 Report Posted April 5, 2011 The behavior of others does not justify any response by you. It goes both ways. If A knows C may be killed by B because of something A does, A is at least morally culpable if not legally responsible. In effect you are saying you have no personal responsibility for anything you don't physically do. No, I'm not saying that at all. As I've already clarified, if someone deliberately directs something at a particular person, with the intent of hurting that person, I think they are morally responsible for the consequences. But if they don't feel remorse, that hardly matters. They aren't legally responsible for words/ this type of action. But knowing that something "may" happen doesn't make a person responsible. A person may go out and reenact a movie, but the person who makes the movie isn't responsible if he does and we don't say they shouldn't have made the movie because they know someone may go out and reenact it. People's freedoms would fly right out the window if that were the case. But I'd like you to answer a question: people do things that others don't like all the time. Do you deny that? Do you think we should only respect the feelings of those who break the law by going on killing sprees as a result? While we don't care about the feelings of those who don't go on a killing spree in response? That makes no sense to me at all. Quote
Wilber Posted April 5, 2011 Report Posted April 5, 2011 But I'd like you to answer a question: people do things that others don't like all the time. Do you deny that? Do you think we should only respect the feelings of those who break the law by going on killing sprees as a result? While we don't care about the feelings of those who don't go on a killing spree in response? That makes no sense to me at all. If you tease a dog and it ends up biting your kid, are you not responsible? Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
Oleg Bach Posted April 5, 2011 Report Posted April 5, 2011 Some actions are wise and others are foolish. With all the publicity that this Pastor got...The American government should have sent a couple of big guys in black suits to teach him the differnece between the bull shit and the bullrushes. This situation should have been dealt with privately. If you know what I mean... Federal agencies know full well what enflames the Muslim opposition and what does not - It must be a tacit policy in America to enflame Muslims in order to maintain the status quo. Quote
Bonam Posted April 5, 2011 Report Posted April 5, 2011 If you tease a dog and it ends up biting your kid, are you not responsible? The dog's owner would be at least as responsible as you are. And both of you are only responsible because the dog is not a person, it is not considered to have the same mental capabilities as a human. If you want to make this analogy, then you implicitly equate Muslims who may commit attacks because they are "teased" with dogs. Quote
Wilber Posted April 5, 2011 Report Posted April 5, 2011 Do you think they should be killed? Too bad the good pastor didn't ask himself that question before he indulged in his little piece of theater. Too bad no one is willing to ask him now. Bottom line, his actions caused a chain of events that ultimately resulted in the deaths of fourteen people. Anyone with more than six brain cells who watches the news once a week knows that something like this can turn certain Muslim elements into berserkers. Either he is a complete imbecile or extremely cunning with little conscience. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
Wilber Posted April 5, 2011 Report Posted April 5, 2011 The dog's owner would be at least as responsible as you are. And both of you are only responsible because the dog is not a person, it is not considered to have the same mental capabilities as a human. If you want to make this analogy, then you implicitly equate Muslims who may commit attacks because they are "teased" with dogs. I am saying that if you tease or taunt anyone or anything, you have no cause to complain about the consequences. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
Guest American Woman Posted April 5, 2011 Report Posted April 5, 2011 (edited) If you tease a dog and it ends up biting your kid, are you not responsible? What Bonam said. You can't compare dogs acting on instinct with humans. Here's another more appropriate analogy. If you tease someone and they get angry and go kill your neighbor, are you responsible? Now are you going to address the questions I've raised? I'm guessing not. Edited April 5, 2011 by American Woman Quote
Jack Weber Posted April 5, 2011 Report Posted April 5, 2011 Too bad the good pastor didn't ask himself that question before he indulged in his little piece of theater. Too bad no one is willing to ask him now. Bottom line, his actions caused a chain of events that ultimately resulted in the deaths of fourteen people. Anyone with more than six brain cells who watches the news once a week knows that something like this can turn certain Muslim elements into berserkers. Either he is a complete imbecile or extremely cunning with little conscience. TURN certain Muslim elements into berserkers??? Uh..I think they're already there... I'm going with imbecile with the Good Reverend,however... Quote The beatings will continue until morale improves!!!
Wilber Posted April 5, 2011 Report Posted April 5, 2011 What Bonam said. Now are you going to address the questions I've raised? I'm guessing not. I've addressed them so many times I am tired of them and you. When are you going to clue into the fact this is about responsibilities not freedoms. There really is a difference you know. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
Bonam Posted April 5, 2011 Report Posted April 5, 2011 (edited) I am saying that if you tease or taunt anyone or anything, you have no cause to complain about the consequences. Yes, yes you do. If I "tease" someone with a "yo mama" joke and he responds by killing my children, for example, I have every cause to complain and insist that our legal system impose the harshest possible penalties on him. If I tease someone and they tease me back, that is a consequence I have no cause to complain about. Those Muslims can go burn as many copies of my favorite book as they like (provided they legally purchase/obtain these copies). If they start killing people, that is something else. Edited April 5, 2011 by Bonam Quote
Guest American Woman Posted April 5, 2011 Report Posted April 5, 2011 I've addressed them so many times I am tired of them and you. When are you going to clue into the fact this is about responsibilities not freedoms. There really is a difference you know. Oh my. I don't give the responses you'd like, so you're tired of me. I don't blame you for not addressing the questions I've asked. You can't answer them honestly and still hold on to your opinion that the pastor is to blame. Quote
Wilber Posted April 5, 2011 Report Posted April 5, 2011 Yes, yes you do. If I "tease" someone with a "yo mama" joke and he responds by killing my children, for example, I have every cause to complain and insist that our legal system impose the harshest possible penalties on him. If I tease someone and they tease me back, that is a consequence I have no cause to complain about. Those Muslims can go burn as many copies of my favorite book as they like. If they start killing people, that is something else. This is not about the Muslims it is about the pastor. No one is trying to justify the deaths of those people. Point is, if he had not burned that book, those people would still be alive. You can argue the rights and wrongs of it all you want, those people will still be dead and they shouldn't be. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
Oleg Bach Posted April 5, 2011 Report Posted April 5, 2011 Too bad the good pastor didn't ask himself that question before he indulged in his little piece of theater. Too bad no one is willing to ask him now. Bottom line, his actions caused a chain of events that ultimately resulted in the deaths of fourteen people. Anyone with more than six brain cells who watches the news once a week knows that something like this can turn certain Muslim elements into berserkers. Either he is a complete imbecile or extremely cunning with little conscience. He's just dumb and wants to be famous - typical American trying to fulfill the American dream even if it kills someone. Quote
Oleg Bach Posted April 5, 2011 Report Posted April 5, 2011 It doesn't. The First Amendment protects speech, not conduct. Sometimes the line is blurry between speech and conduct, but not here. But query, punching someone back is probably always illegal, unless in self-defense. Good point - all was fine when he "spoke" about the burning - all turned to shit when he DID the burning. There is a differnce between free speech and free conduct. Quote
Wilber Posted April 5, 2011 Report Posted April 5, 2011 Good point - all was fine when he "spoke" about the burning - all turned to shit when he DID the burning. There is a differnce between free speech and free conduct. Thank you Oleg. Pretty basic really. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
Bonam Posted April 5, 2011 Report Posted April 5, 2011 (edited) This is not about the Muslims it is about the pastor. No one is trying to justify the deaths of those people. Point is, if he had not burned that book, those people would still be alive. You can argue the rights and wrongs of it all you want, those people will still be dead and they shouldn't be. I would argue that an individual in our society should not expect a free speech act that does not harm anyone to result in deaths. That there are mindless savages elsewhere around the world who may act like mindless savages should not enter into our considerations of what we should or should not do. We should not, must not, allow barbarians halfway around the world to stop us from acting as we otherwise would. The pastor could not predict the actions of fanatical Muslims, nor was he required to try to. Edited April 5, 2011 by Bonam Quote
Oleg Bach Posted April 5, 2011 Report Posted April 5, 2011 Thank you Oleg. Pretty basic really. You would make a good lawyer - that was impressive...not often I keep things basic - you did a good job - congrats! One can think all he wants - say all he cares to say without someone harming you for it...I could think the darkest and most murderous of thoughts - but when those thoughts are conducted into the realm of the material world - people get hurt..the actual action was a slap across the face of some Muslims. It was a phyisical act - not an intellectual one. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.