• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Pastor who burned Koran demands retribution

CaptainCourtesy said:
Is it so hard for some Muslims to respect human life or the beliefs and freedoms of others?
Click to expand...

killing the innocent people is terrorism; Taleban is not the face of Islam, period. now i would ask you to define people in USA; tell me what is your excuse ? after all you are smarter, more advabced etc than muslims; so what is your excuse to kill people in Afghanistan or ıraq by mistake and then take pictures with those killings with a smile on your soldiers, or examininf the people in us whether they are muslims or not, tell me please your excuse??
 
soguks said:
btw it is not just a book, it is guide of muslims sent by Allah; being respectful of other is that hard for some people in us?
Click to expand...
Is rioting and killing in the name of that book being respectful of it?
 
ManofthPeephole said:
right, the fear of violence should make me not do something. As i said, under such circumstances you don't have those rights
Click to expand...

Having a right does not equate to using that right. You have a choice. If someone puts a gun to your head and tells you to give them your money, you have the right to defend yourself. This may be a very poor choice and you may choose to not exercise that right. You still HAVE the right, but you may not want to accept the consequences of using it.
 
soguks said:
killing the innocent people is terrorism; Taleban is not the face of Islam, period. now i would ask you to define people in USA; tell me what is your excuse ? after all you are smarter, more advabced etc than muslims; so what is your excuse to kill people in Afghanistan or ıraq by mistake and then take pictures with those killings with a smile on your soldiers, or examininf the people in us whether they are muslims or not, tell me please your excuse??
Click to expand...

I have never been to Afghanastan nor have I ever killed anyone. You are making the exact same error that you are wrongly accusing me of. Those who kill people in those countries by mistake are no more the face of the US than the Taliban are the face of Islam. It is important to remember that it works both ways.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Having a right does not equate to using that right. You have a choice. If someone puts a gun to your head and tells you to give them your money, you have the right to defend yourself. This may be a very poor choice and you may choose to not exercise that right. You still HAVE the right, but you may not want to accept the consequences of using it.
Click to expand...

No, you have a right to get shot in the face. You're right of self-defense was taken from you when you were put into a position of violence that you can't defend against
 
ludahai said:
The crime being???
Click to expand...

soguks said:
thats what some people in us cannot understand, you think the only truth is yours, after all you are more adavancek country in the world, he?; so that gives you every right; for example some people in US brag about their democracy , freedom etc. , but the same poeple could publicly examine others religion ; like trumhp's examining the religion of Obama, it is very dramatic, cuz that man is the candidate for The presidency...

btw it is not just a book, it is guide of muslims sent by Allah; being respectful of other is that hard for some people in us?
Click to expand...

It is only a certain faction that feel this way. They are in the minority. Unfortunately "the squeaky wheel" still gets the oil. I am just an outspoken person; most people think the rev is a nut case, but they see it as a given and don't have an ax to grind. The ones who disagree with that and secretly feel he vindicates their hostility, are usually loud mouths with a YouTube account.
Frankly the guy should never have been given media attention. But if he finagled his way to stardom on his own, the media is still complicit for not telling the truth on the air that the man was endangering lives. Americans are individuals and I believe most are moral.
This new wave of propaganda has swept up some folks who are probably a little loose in the brain department and others who are morbidly uneducated.
 
ManofthPeephole said:
right, the fear of violence should make me not do something. As i said, under such circumstances you don't have those rights
Click to expand...

So you're saying that rights exist only when extortion is absent.

Nice.

Just think, there are shop keepers in Wisconsin facing the threat of union boycotts if they don't put pro-union signs in their windows for free.

Store fronts cost money to rent, the unions are therefore stealing from those shop keepers just for the sign space, and they're threatening worse if their demands are not met. So the shop keepers have lost their right to run their business as they chose, according to you.

NO, THEY HAVE NOT LOST THEIR RIGHTS JUST BECAUSE THUGS THREATEN THEM. In this country laws exist to protect them from thugs. And they are in no wise responsible for the actions others take when they exercise those basic freedoms.

Whackies killed a dozen in Afganistan because of some completely irrelevant and insignificant act by a nobody in the United States?

Too.
Damn.
Bad.

The man in the US doesn't lose his rights thereby, and should not. It's up to the people overseas to control their idiots, or not, as they choose. But the blame for the crimes committed by the idiots in Afghanistan stops with the idiots in Afghanistan.
 
soguks said:
then why i should act in how you want? if there is no mutual respect?
Click to expand...

I'm not the one demanding you respect my invisible sky-daddy

PS and "mutual respect" doesn't mean I do exactly what you want. It means we agree to respect each others boundaries and freedom. Like the freedom to be critical of a set of myths that some assholes take way to seriously
 
Last edited:
X Factor said:
Is rioting and killing in the name of that book being respectful of it?
Click to expand...

the same answer and question for you:

killing the innocent people is terrorism; Taleban is not the face of Islam, period. now i would ask you to define people in USA; tell me what is your excuse ? after all you are smarter, more advabced etc than muslims; so what is your excuse to kill people in Afghanistan or ıraq by mistake and then take pictures with those killings with a smile on your soldiers, or examininf the people in us whether they are muslims or not, tell me please your excuse??
 
Mayor Snorkum said:
What harm did Reverend Jones suffer as a result of his choice to exercise his freedom?

None.
Click to expand...

One's behavior does not only affect that individual. You shouting fire in a theater affects lots of other people.

Therefore there was no reason for him to refrain.
Click to expand...

Of course there was. He doesn't live in a vacuum.

Start telling yourself that Jones bears NO responsibility for crackpots in Afghanistan.
Click to expand...

Start pointing out where I said he had any responsibility for what those crackpots in Afghanistan did. My posts in this thread won't be hard to find. Go to it.
 
ManofthPeephole said:
No, you have a right to get shot in the face. You're right of self-defense was taken from you when you were put into a position of violence that you can't defend against
Click to expand...

No, my right to self-defense was never taken from me. I can choose to defend myself whether or not I am successful.

And please show me a law on the books that indicates that I have a right to get shot in the face.
 
Mayor Snorkum said:
So you're saying that rights exist only when extortion is absent.

Nice.

Just think, there are shop keepers in Wisconsin facing the threat of union boycotts if they don't put pro-union signs in their windows for free.

Store fronts cost money to rent, the unions are therefore stealing from those shop keepers just for the sign space, and they're threatening worse if their demands are not met. So the shop keepers have lost their right to run their business as they chose, according to you.

NO, THEY HAVE NOT LOST THEIR RIGHTS JUST BECAUSE THUGS THREATEN THEM. In this country laws exist to protect them from thugs. And they are in no wise responsible for the actions others take when they exercise those basic freedoms.

Whackies killed a dozen in Afganistan because of some completely irrelevant and insignificant act by a nobody in the United States?

Too.
Damn.
Bad.

The man in the US doesn't lose his rights thereby, and should not. It's up to the people overseas to control their idiots, or not, as they choose. But the blame for the crimes committed by the idiots in Afghanistan stops with the idiots in Afghanistan.
Click to expand...


No, I am saying you lose your rights when you voluntarily give them up, due to the threat of force. If you don't give them up, you haven't lost anything
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
One's behavior does not only affect that individual. You shouting fire in a theater affects lots of other people.
Click to expand...

Why is everyone making this comparison? Such an act is illegal because it requires immediate action that isn't open to deliberation. The same effect isn't achieved from burning a Quran
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
No, my right to self-defense was never taken from me. I can choose to defend myself whether or not I am successful.

And please show me a law on the books that indicates that I have a right to get shot in the face.
Click to expand...

I'm speaking figuratively. You're right at self defense ended the moment you were put into circumstances that you couldn't defend yourself against
 
OhIsee.Then said:
I care that a pastor would successfully set up a situation where we could rant with religious indignation comparing the burning of a koran to the murder of 12 people. The murder is important to me. Where it’s going is scary.
Click to expand...

You need to sort out who's responsible for what.

Reverend Jones is responsible for releasing CO2 and water vapor, the products of combustion, and that's it.

The crazies in Afghanistan are responsible for killing a dozen people.

Nothing wrong with being upset about those deaths. It's silly and pointless to blame the Reverend Jones unless you can show video of Jones with the murder weapon in his hands.

This is America. People have the freedom to engage in pointless provocation. People do not have the freedom to restrain those acts unless the acts themselves present immediate harm to others. A crazy watching a YouTube video and deciding to rush out and kill people, that's secondary harm, not immediate, and those people made independent choices to murder.

Want to stop the crazies? Then Afganistan and the other hate filled islamic countries have to start executing their imam who preach hate and encourage actions that lead to the slaughter of innocents. The US cannot clean that up, and it should neither try to do that or try to erode American freedoms in the US to prevent further such atrocities. No one in America bears the blame for the event.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
One's behavior does not only affect that individual. You shouting fire in a theater affects lots of other people.



Of course there was. He doesn't live in a vacuum.



Start pointing out where I said he had any responsibility for what those crackpots in Afghanistan did. My posts in this thread won't be hard to find. Go to it.
Click to expand...
Doesn't your first two statements contradict your third?
 
ManofthPeephole said:
I'm not the one demanding you respect my invisible sky-daddy

PS and "mutual respect" doesn't mean I do exactly what you want. It means we agree to respect each others boundaries and freedom. Like the freedom to be critical of a set of myths that some assholes take way to seriously
Click to expand...

you are out of my league, really you are ...bravo contradiction that much in a few sentences worth confessing that for me.
 
ManofthPeephole said:
I'm speaking figuratively. You're right at self defense ended the moment you were put into circumstances that you couldn't defend yourself against
Click to expand...

No.

Their ability to defend themselves was compromised, their right still existed.

Rights don't vanish.
 
ManofthPeephole said:
Why is everyone making this comparison? Such an act is illegal because it requires immediate action that isn't open to deliberation. The same effect isn't achieved from burning a Quran
Click to expand...

In this case I am not speaking legally. I am demonstrating that one's actions can have an impact on others.
 
ManofthPeephole said:
I'm speaking figuratively. You're right at self defense ended the moment you were put into circumstances that you couldn't defend yourself against
Click to expand...

I'm not speaking figuratively. I'm speaking literally. My rights to self-defense do not end in the scenario I presented.
 
Mayor Snorkum said:
No.

Their ability to defend themselves was compromised, their right still existed.

Rights don't vanish.
Click to expand...

rights vanish all the time, while still serving as abstract concepts in books. And the moment you are afraid to exercise your right's, due to the threat of violence, they no longer exist
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
I'm not speaking figuratively. I'm speaking literally. My rights to self-defense do not end in the scenario I presented.
Click to expand...

No, my comment about the "right to get shot in the face" was me speaking figuratively. And yes, once you choose not to exercise your rights, due to fear of violence reprisal, you literally no longer have them
 
X Factor said:
Doesn't your first two statements contradict your third?
Click to expand...

Not at all. There is a difference between one making a choice that affects others and one having any responsibility in the behavior of those other people. For example, if I burn the US Flag, and someone gets pissed off that I did it and goes on a killing rampage, my behavior had an impact on others, and it may have been prudent for me to have not burned the flag... even though it was entirely legal for me to do so. Even with this, though, I am not responsible for the behaviors of that other person's murders.
 
soguks said:
you are out of my league, really you are ...bravo contradiction that much in a few sentences worth confessing that for me.
Click to expand...

I'm not the one who thought mutual respect was having some sex-slave locked in my basement
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom