• 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

scourge99 said:
Its asinine that moderates such as yourself make excuses for these men when they are telling you why they did what they did.

They did it because they are angry that their HOLYBOOK WAS DESECRATED. Is it that hard to admit that some (many?) religious people, especially fanatics, do crazy **** because of there beliefs?
Click to expand...

The radical Muslims want to kill all infidels. We had the cartoons and now we have the burning of the koran. Maybe they are willing to use any excuse. What next? Are they going to kill 12 innocent people everytime someone has a hog roast?
 
The whole issue boils down to knowns and unknowns. If you know for a fact that your action will incite someone to violence, unless there is a larger purpose to your actions in which you think the benefits of your actions will outweigh that violence, part of the responsibility lies with you.

If you meet a sleeping grizzly in the forest, you are entirely within your rights to poke it with a stick. But don't expect to be able to sue the bear for damages when he mauls you.
 
Manc Skipper said:
That is an incredibly literalist interpretaton of the yelling fire analogy. Much like the thinking behind the pastor's triggering of events.
We have several past instances of both real and alleged Koran abuse and the extreme, often lethal reaction to those events on the part of some ill-educated natives. Knowing this, the pastor chose to set the pavlovian bell ringing, and the kindest interpretation of his action could be said to be that he possibly got a more extreme reaction than he expected.
Click to expand...


such an argument can be used to silence speech and actions around any controversial matter, from civil rights to abortion
 
Tell that to the right not me. I do understand morons. I watch them obviscate all the time.
ManofthPeephole said:
you're now making a Tu quoque argument. If it was moronic to outlaw types of free speech, it would remain moronic regardless if such actions are being taken up by the right or left
Click to expand...
 
Mikeyy said:
I love that when you are running out of running room with your arguments you turn to the old "Well ya but what about those other guys". Civil rights have nothing at all to do with this subject. It's simply a way to obscure the issue. One issue at a time would be reasonable I would think.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry if you can't understand logical consistency. But then again, you're the guy suggesting only "muslim haters" would support civil rights
 
They never have before. Hardly the same thing though.
Barbbtx said:
The radical Muslims want to kill all infidels. We had the cartoons and now we have the burning of the koran. Maybe they are willing to use any excuse. What next? Are they going to kill 12 innocent people everytime someone has a hog roast?
Click to expand...
 
Dittohead not! said:
If there were a bunch of crazies who would riot and start cutting off heads as a result of burning a US flag, then doing so would be highly irresponsible, don't you think?

There is a bunch of crazies who will riot and start cutting off heads when the Koran is burned. That is a fact that is well known, and was well known by Reverend Nutter and his followers. Burning the Koran, therefore, was highly irresponsible, and they should be called on it.
Click to expand...

It may be irresponsible given the current system. However, he is still free to do so and he is no murderer as I've seen some people earlier state.
 
You are the one suggesting I would deny his rights
ManofthPeephole said:
I'm sorry if you can't understand logical consistency. But then again, you're the guy suggesting only "muslim haters" would support civil rights
Click to expand...
 
Barbbtx said:
The radical Muslims want to kill all infidels. We had the cartoons and now we have the burning of the koran. Maybe they are willing to use any excuse. What next? Are they going to kill 12 innocent people everytime someone has a hog roast?
Click to expand...

Not all Muslims are crazy jihadis. Not all Christians are followers of Reverend Nutter, either.

I think that's a good thing, don't you?
 
Dittohead not! said:
Such a scenario was created by burning the Koran, unless, of course, you think the victims actually had the option to deliberate their fate.
Click to expand...

So in your mind afghans are mindless automatons who simply react to stimuli, and lack anything resembling independent thought?



Dittohead not! said:
Absolutely. The civil rights activists were responsible for all of the outcomes of their activism. The question is, were there more positive, or more negative consequences to their actions?
Click to expand...

the value of free speech isn't solely found in what you agree with, or find furthering the good of society. In fact, I would say protecting the ability to state something offensive (which civil rights were to many) is more important than protecting that which everyone agrees with
 
Last edited:
Ikari said:
It may be irresponsible given the current system. However, he is still free to do so and he is no murderer as I've seen some people earlier state.
Click to expand...

His actions were irresponsible, and he should be held to account for it. As I just said, along with rights come responsibilities. The two can't be separated.
 
Mikeyy said:
Again, You spin everything in order to avoid condemning Jones without reservation. It makes one wonder again if you might want to join him in his Koran burning.
Click to expand...

No, just look up, and read on, logical fallacies. It will save everyone here much effort
 
Dittohead not! said:
His actions were irresponsible, and he should be held to account for it. As I just said, along with rights come responsibilities. The two can't be separated.
Click to expand...

Yes with rights comes responsibilities. What did he do that was wrong? You cannot infringe upon the rights of others in the process of exercising your own. So what did he do? He burned the Koran, a book he bought. He burned his own property. He may have been trying to gain publicity or whatever by doing so, but he was well within his rights to do so. The unreasonable action, the action which infringes upon others, is not the burning of the book. Rather it is the murder which followed, and for that he had not action. He didn't commission the act, he didn't participate in the act. You can say "well he shouldn't do it because it will get this response". I prefer to say "well you shouldn't be killing people because someone else burned your book."

In the end, some of y'all are are calling for the use of government force against this man's exercise of rights when he himself did nothing wrong. It's the people who are killing others who are at fault. With rights come responsibilities. We have the duty and responsibility to recognize the rights of others and allow them their free exercise of their rights. This call for government force and coercion I think is maybe a bit overboard. The people at fault are the one's who make the choice to act.
 
rocket88 said:
So actually, the only thing we disagree about is whether or not it was forseeable.

I don't support any changes to the laws or Constitution with regards to his right to burn the Koran. All I'm saying is that just because you have the legal right to be an asshole, it doesn't mean you should be.

Inherent in these rights is the right to not excercise them. Freedom of Religion includes the right to be an atheist. The Right to Bear Arms includes the right to not own any weapons at all. Sometimes it's smarter not to, and this was probably one of those times.
Click to expand...


I fail to see a disagreement between your posts and my beliefs on this subject
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
What was the point in burning a Qu'ran?
Click to expand...

I believe he was protesting the ground zero mosque. You know, the one where everyone has agreed Rauf has the right to build, but is it the right thing to do.
 
Want to see what these evil savage barbarian muslims did in the name of their crappy book? Here is a beheading in the name of islam: EDITED FOR CONTENT WARNING: Beheading In the Name Of Allah[/url]
(PLEASE NOTE: the video is REAL! It will give you nightmares if you watch it! I suggest you DONT watch it. And it is of course NSFW!!!)
Compare THAT to burning a freakin book!!!!!
Anyone who dares think what this pastor did was even CLOSE to equal to these evil scum muslims just watch that video!!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ikari said:
Yes with rights comes responsibilities. What did he do that was wrong? You cannot infringe upon the rights of others in the process of exercising your own. So what did he do? He burned the Koran, a book he bought. He burned his own property. He may have been trying to gain publicity or whatever by doing so, but he was well within his rights to do so. The unreasonable action, the action which infringes upon others, is not the burning of the book. Rather it is the murder which followed, and for that he had not action. He didn't commission the act, he didn't participate in the act. You can say "well he shouldn't do it because it will get this response". I prefer to say "well you shouldn't be killing people because someone else burned your book."
Click to expand...

No, of course killing people because someone else burned your book is the act of irrational people. When those people are known to be irrational, when it is predictable that they will go on a killing spree as a result of burning a book, then doing so is highly irresponsible. That's what Reverend Nutter did that was wrong.

Ikari said:
In the end, some of y'all are are calling for the use of government force against this man's exercise of rights when he himself did nothing wrong. It's the people who are killing others who are at fault. With rights come responsibilities. We have the duty and responsibility to recognize the rights of others and allow them their free exercise of their rights. This call for government force and coercion I think is maybe a bit overboard. The people at fault are the one's who make the choice to act.
Click to expand...

I'm not calling for the use of government force. It is not up to the government to force someone to take responsibility for the irresponsible exercise of basic rights, and most definitely not up to them to take rights away because of irresponsibility. That is a function of the courts and the individuals who were harmed as a result of said actions.

Were someone to make a public statement that injured me in some way, i wouldn't be calling on the government to take their rights away. I'd exercise my rights to haul his butt into civil court and answer for his actions. That is exactly what should happen to Reverend Nutter, he should be hauled into civil court and made to answer for his actions.

He knew that burning he Koran would result in injury to others. He did it anyway. That is simply wrong.
 
The Giant Noodle said:
Want to see what these evil savage barbarian muslims did in the name of their crappy book? Here is a beheading in the name of islam: WARNING: Beheading In the Name Of Allah
(PLEASE NOTE: the video is REAL! It will give you nightmares if you watch it! I suggest you DONT watch it. And it is of course NSFW!!!)
Compare THAT to burning a freakin book!!!!!
Anyone who dares think what this pastor did was even CLOSE to equal to these evil scum muslims just watch that video!!
Click to expand...

lol Noodle you're hilarious

Translation: I'm gonna post this video link here so you can all see how evil Muslims are, but I strongly encourage you not to watch it because it will give you bad dreams!
 
Dittohead not! said:
Reverend Jones had every right, under the first Amendment, to burn the Koran.

Along with that right, comes responsibility.

You can yell "fire" in the crowded theater, but you're responsible for the riot that ensues. You can say that your neighbor is a child molester, but, if that isn't true, your neighbor has the right to sue for defamation. You have the right to incite crazies to violence, but you're responsible for the results.

There are no rights without responsibilities.
Click to expand...

Please respond to the example about the animal-rights activists. What if they killed 12 people everytime a hunter shot a deer. Wouldn't you feel the right to hunt had been at least compromised?
Shouting fire, is illegal if there is no fire. Killing a deer during deer season and with the proper license is legal.
 
Dittohead not! said:
No, of course killing people because someone else burned your book is the act of irrational people. When those people are known to be irrational, when it is predictable that they will go on a killing spree as a result of burning a book, then doing so is highly irresponsible. That's what Reverend Nutter did that was wrong..
Click to expand...

you could say the same thing about people standing up to fascists or the klan
 
Dittohead not! said:
I'm not calling for the use of government force. It is not up to the government to force someone to take responsibility for the irresponsible exercise of basic rights, and most definitely not up to them to take rights away because of irresponsibility. That is a function of the courts and the individuals who were harmed as a result of said actions.

Were someone to make a public statement that injured me in some way, i wouldn't be calling on the government to take their rights away. I'd exercise my rights to haul his butt into civil court and answer for his actions. That is exactly what should happen to Reverend Nutter, he should be hauled into civil court and made to answer for his actions.

He knew that burning he Koran would result in injury to others. He did it anyway. That is simply wrong.
Click to expand...

So you want people to pay for the irrational actions of others? You're essentially working to silence anything potentially controversial, and that may cause a reaction. Just think how stifled the civil rights movement would have been if they were held liable for all the chaos , death, and injury that surrounded the movement. caused by those opposing it
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom