Burn a Koran for free speech.

[brightmorningstar]

Wiccan Child,

I did, I just didn't see the relevance. You may not care if people burn Bibles, but something tells me someone, probably in the Deep South of the US, would be rather ticked off.

Oh many Christians are hacked off with Bibles being confiscated and burned all the time over the world, but we don’t get that advertised as much and we don’t get Christian mobs killing people.
Indeed, whilst recently in the UK a Muslim publically burned a remembrance day poppy and got a £50 fine, Terry Jones who had previously only threatened to burn the Quran but backed off, got refused entry to the country.
Had you not considered Terry Jones burning the Quran as the response to Islamic terrorism? How are you looking at this?

Indirectly, yeah. They knew burning Qu'rans would incited anger in Islamic countries. They knew that insulting Muslims leads to riots. That doesn't justify Muslims rioting, of course, but it does place at least some blame on those who deliberately and knowingly poured petrol on the fire.

So put the fire out.

Well, those who place the blame on those who burnt the Qu'rans are right: even if their actions were legal, they're still at least partially culpable for the riots and deaths. No one is saying their actions should be made criminal (or, at least, I hope not). They're free to burn as many Qu'rans as they like. But that doesn't make it a moral or righteous thing to do. It's borderline retarded, WBC-style.

Sorry but that would place some blame for WBC’s actions on the government for passing pro-gay laws provoking them and offending them. No sorry, I don’t accept that, violence in response to offense is not acceptable.

 

[lawtonfogle]

I did, I just didn't see the relevance. You may not care if people burn Bibles, but something tells me someone, probably in the Deep South of the US, would be rather ticked off.

Enough to riot? Doubt it.

Indirectly, yeah. They knew burning Qu'rans would incited anger in Islamic countries. They knew that insulting Muslims leads to riots. That doesn't justify Muslims rioting, of course, but it does place at least some blame on those who deliberately and knowingly poured petrol on the fire.

And wearing those revealing clothes puts some blame on those who knowingly poured petrol on the fire.

Well, those who place the blame on those who burnt the Qu'rans are right: even if their actions were legal, they're still at least partially culpable for the riots and deaths. No one is saying their actions should be made criminal (or, at least, I hope not).

I have seen/read/heard many who indicate otherwise.

They're free to burn as many Qu'rans as they like. But that doesn't make it a moral or righteous thing to do. It's borderline retarded, WBC-style.

I know those who would make WBC illegal as well (what they do, to be exact).

That could be said by any side of any controversial issue.

And I'm known as the one who will push people, especially when their views contradict (i.e. you can eat animals against their will but if they hump you, it is illegal to participate).

Such as? For what it's worth, I'm opposed to any infringement on on the freedom of speech, and other associated freedoms (expression, association, etc). The US has gone from being the butt of international jokes, to a state with worryingly limited freedoms and liberties.

Books being made illegal, namely if they are declared obscene and without artistic value. I can understand not giving these books to people who don't want it, but to outright ban the books even if they are only provided to those who want it is an attack on the freedom of speech. I even have a few cases where I have been sent messages (not on here) that it should be illegal for me to take the stance I do in some of my more controversial arguments, and that it is a shame I can't be punished for it.

 

[lawtonfogle]

Are we talking freedom of speech, or freedom of pyromania ?

.

Well, I am a pyro. I can definitely ensure any book I burn will go out in far more style than what people are use to.

 

[lawtonfogle]

Some states have already banned cross burnings. Are you going to do that too?

The have? Well, I know of an old cross on my parents property, so I'll ask them for permission as well. Should I just throw in a copy of the Constitution as well and put the whole festival on you tube? Better yet, let me get a few people I know to participate, get some diversity. I should get a Muslim to burn the Bible, and maybe get one of my black friends to burn the cross. I'll do the Koran, and who should I ask to burn the Constitution. Perhaps I should ask a vet who has similar views as mine.

 

[lawtonfogle]

It was a pleasure to burn.

I'd make the obvious Nazi comparison, but you no doubt have heard that more then once already.

The Nazi's burned to stop the spread of certain knowledge, I would burn to protest the stopping of freedom of speech. Big difference. I'd probably give the book a once through, but I think I would prefer reading the electronic version.

 

[lawtonfogle]

No.

Yes.

No there is not.

Yes there is.

You are burning the books not to send a message, but because it gives you a sick thrill of pleasure.

Because I am actually burning the book right now, and somehow you know better than I why I am doing it.

There are a thousand ways to protest besides acting like the Third Reich.

Perhaps you missed the part where it is because of those who want to limit that one certain expression of speech that I am engaging in it.

If you wanted to send a message, a real message, you would use a more creative and original means of protest.

But then I wouldn't be sending the message that this means of protest should still be usable, would I?

 

[lawtonfogle]

In order to make a point to Muslims, you're burning the Koran.

Actually, my point isn't aimed at Muslims (unless you think Muslims have taken over the government).

 

[SithDoughnut]

Actually, my point isn't aimed at Muslims (unless you think Muslims have taken over the government).

Then there's no point to be made. The government is not affected by your book burnings.

 

[lawtonfogle]

So you're doing this for no reason then, since no one of importance cares about what you have to think.

You could say that about most any expression of freedom of speech. I'm mostly aiming at those who want to try to limit this form of an expression of speech, which means they have made themselves artificially care.

Much like most people don't care about flag burning, till someone tried to make it illegal.

 

[Judy Crayton]

Great comment Solar

 

[lawtonfogle]

Then you are, as I posted earlier, just doing this for the thrill. Unless, of course, Lawton Fogle burning the Koran is newsworthy.

I doubt it is.

A protest that no one sees or cares about is useless.

Since most protesters cannot ensure they will make the news, they are doing it for the thrills. Rosa Park was just doing it for the thrills as well, by your reasoning.

 

[lawtonfogle]

Rosa Parks was not trying to protest by refusing to sit at the back of the bus. She was doing what she thought was right. You are just doing this to get attention, otherwise you wouldn't have started a thread about it.

Except I'm not burning a Koran. So what you are saying is I started a thread to get attention, which has nothing to do with the original topic at hand except to be a guess at the reason the thread was created, which is still wrong.

 

[Schneiderman]

Then you are, as I posted earlier, just doing this for the thrill. Unless, of course, Lawton Fogle burning the Koran is newsworthy.

I doubt it is.

A protest that no one sees or cares about is useless.

If no one cares about it then why are you so against it?

If you didn't care you wouldn't be here opposing it.

 

[Schneiderman]

If that's the case then your argument is without vigor and therefore without merit. But I don't really believe that's the reason you're here. This is the internet, if you didn't care about this particular discussion, you would find one that you do care about.

 

[Schneiderman]

Ah, but this board seems to have the most, shall we say, devoted individuals for their respective causes, and the most devoted always give the longest and most heartfelt debates. One look at all the birther and creationist topics gives ample evidence to that.

So I find someone I disagree with on the board, like the OP, and get into an argument with him. I get my entertainment, he gets his feeling of superiority, and we all keep riding on this gently tilting sphere around the sun.

So you DO care, which means you've proven your own argument false.

 

[SithDoughnut]

So you DO care, which means you've proven your own argument false.

You can disagree with someone, but not care. I don't care what people's favourite colours are, for example, but I still disagree.

 

[lawtonfogle]

Because I'm bored and enjoy heated internet debates.

Try defending pedophilia (not child molestation) or comparing homosexuality and incest (between adults). Now those are heated.

 

[lawtonfogle]

You can disagree with someone, but not care. I don't care what people's favourite colours are, for example, but I still disagree.

It ends up with us all happening to like the same color.

 

[lawtonfogle]

If you are not going to burn a Koran then why make a thread called Burn a Koran. Your own OP calls for everyone to go out and a burn a book, but you won't.

That's called hypocrisy.

No, it is called I don't have a Koran nor do I have a place I can legally burn it. College dorms don't have book burning rooms.

 

[Schneiderman]

You can disagree with someone, but not care. I don't care what people's favourite colours are, for example, but I still disagree.

If you didn't care you would find a topic you do care about to discuss.

"I don't care" is a copout for people who have presented poor arguments and aren't prepared to defend them.