Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

If America places limitations on free speech then we're all fucked.

I think it is a fine thing to burn a Qu'ran. Showing disdain for a holy book by burning it should be one of the least interesting or noteworthy statements a person can make; unfortunately it's a big deal and people are getting killed over it.

I don't really know what to make of it all, because I know full well that Muslim people have all the cognitive abilities I have, and they should be able to understand that a non-Muslim country is not going to punish a non-Muslim man for burning the Qu'ran, especially one with a long history of free speech. I also don't see why anyone would think someone's life should be taken because they desecrated a holy book, or indeed why they should be punished at all.

It makes no sense to me. The only reason people intelligent enough to dress themselves and normal enough to feel empathy could want to kill Qu'ran-burning-man is because they really believe in the Qu'ran, and for some reason really believing in the Qu'ran makes you want to kill blasphemers. And if that's the case, then the Qu'ran is a piece of shit book worthy of being used as firewood.

I would love to talk to a more westernised Muslim and ask them what they make of this.

In high school, every year, a Christian group would come in and give us all free bibles. And every lunchtime after, we would tear up the bibles and throw them all over the place and show contempt towards them, in the way highschoolers would. I am almost certain Muslim members of my class did the exact same thing and they certainly didn't care it was happening. It might have been a different time back then and maybe nowadays they would speak up, but I really don't think so. I'm not calling them all hypocrites or anything - religion does crazy things to the brain and they probably didn't think 'what if this was the Qu'ran'.

Also, in the UK some kids youtubed themselves burning a Qu'ran and ended up in court for it: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39323837/ns/
world_news-europe/ - not sure what happened to them. Like, seriously. I want to burn a fucking Qu'ran and youtube it just because of this fucking nonsense. It's a completely victimless crime and this is a secular society. In fact, in the UK, we've got a fucking blasphemous, anti-religious society and a state church, set up so Henry VIII could shag, which has twisted and loosened Christianity so much if I was religious I would think it was Satanic. And we give a shit about people burning the Qu'ran, enough of a shit to waste taxpayer's money putting them through the judicial process.

tldr; the protests at Terry Jones for burning the Qu'ran are proof that the Qu'ran is worth no more than burning.

Oh and I'm sure there are Anti-Western people in power who are encouraging their populace to get riled up about this to further their own agendas, but I would think the main reason people are pissed off is because they are Muslim and feel disrespected. And if you asked them, they'd all say so and they'd all use Qu'ranic quotes to justify their rage and bloodlust. You can blame powerful people for everything, but you have to look at the individual person's motives rather than immediately jumping to hushed conversations in high places.

At 4/4/11 12:53 PM, Earfetish wrote: Oh and I'm sure there are Anti-Western people in power who are encouraging their populace to get riled up about this to further their own agendas, but I would think the main reason people are pissed off is because they are Muslim and feel disrespected.

So let them be pissed off and feel disrespected. It becomes a problem when the masses get violent and for this you do need a strong sense of political exclusion/isolation, instability and demagogues. Why do you think you see no images on TV of Dubai businessmen in charcoal striped suits pelting offices of US banks with rocks or molotov cocktails?

I mean, if the king of Belgium today says that blacks are too stupid to govern themselves then it will just spark international condemnations. If he (or, rather, his brother) would have said it in 1960 there would have been riots in the Congo. It's really hard to separate cases like this from the deeper political situation. Both in this case and the Muhammad cartoon business of a few years back.

I heard somebody say this the other day: "Burn the holy book of any other book, few people would care, nobody would care enough to kill somebody. Islam is the kid that's just hit puberty, and wants to fight everybody in the playground."

At 4/4/11 03:32 PM, Dromedary wrote: I heard somebody say this the other day: "Burn the holy book of any other religion, few people would care, nobody would care enough to kill somebody. Islam is the kid that's just hit puberty, and wants to fight everybody in the playground."

fix'd

At 4/4/11 07:18 AM, Gario wrote: Already addressed when I said punishment for that particular crime should be administered. Try to respond after reading the entire argument next time and save yourself the embarrassment.

There's no embarassment. Your argument was foolish on every level. We are in a foreign country with UN backing as a response to attacks against us. We have every right to be there. And, while we are there, we can protect our citizens and our UN delegates with all military force. Of course, even had you been right, it would still be illegal under Afghanistan law and immoral. But even on a jurisdiction level, you're beyond your scope.

Then let them take care of it. Again, aside from those that rallied the troops to kill the UN members (that is our business, as it breaks international law), murder in the Middle East is not our business. As much as I'd love to indite Karzai for his role in this, that's considered an act of war... not something we need in that area right now.

What does Karzai have to do with it? Do you have any clue what in the heck you're talking about?

How is that even close to a valid response? What the hell are you talking about?

It's called mockery. Your response was moronic. See above for the six times I've addressed this.

Yes, there is. Hey, I can argue that way too, if you want. Try giving a reason next time.

Um, I did. It's neat to take a sentence and pretend there was nothing before or after it, but I explained it quite succinctly. And, there's not a single person who can argue with the argument I gave. You'll forgive me if I repeatedly skip all your responses saying "nope".

Let's abstract what you're saying for a second. One party believes something, and if others don't follow it then they die. Our party believes that others should believe whatever they want (which is a belief in itself)... and if others don't follow it then they die. In this case, we're not fighting to protect the innocent, or anything like that (as can easily be shown by statements earlier in this thread). We're fighting to pass on our beliefs or pluralistic tolerance. We're proposing to kill people to enforce our belief in this thread. That is absolutely no different than the people that kill in order to enforce their own beliefs.

Of course it's different. Your little dance here doesn't make any sense. Party A says "I get to kill party B because they disagree with me!" Party C says "No you don't, they have a right to disagree with you." These two viewpoints aren't remotely comparable, and only an idiot would claim otherwise. It's no different than says that a woman who uses violence to defend herself from rape, or a third party that uses violence to defend someone from being raped is as bad as a violent rapist. After all...they all use violence!

Yet, this is idiocy that even a 6 year old raises an eyebrow at. The person resisting rape has done nothing wrong, nor has the good samaritan who defended her. The rapist did. The rapist is using violence to take someone's rights. The other two are using violence to defend someone's rights.

Under this absolutely empty headed argument that you're pushing, I have a right to kill you. After all, you came in with no facts and insulted my superior argument. It annoys me when petulant children attack their intellectual betters, and even more so when they don't even TRY to be logical or intelligent about it. I am offended that you equate people who are outraged at murder with murderers. So, under your retard logic, that makes killing you justified. All I have to do is claim I don't believe you have a right to life (kinda hinted at by the murder by the way), and it's a hard issue.

Sorry, I'm done arguing with you. If you can't see a difference, it means you're an idiot. It has nothing to do with anyone not presenting you the facts on the ground at this point. You're just a f*cking sociopath with no conscience and no intelligence.

My depiction of Prophet Muhammad

At 4/5/11 03:03 PM, RightWingGamer wrote:

At 4/5/11 02:56 PM, MrFlopz wrote: My depiction of Prophet Muhammad

Everyone draw Muhammad day isn't until May 20th.

Ok, I thought Draw Muhammad Day was a one time thing. I'll keep that in mind.

Really that's just wrong you don't have the right to burn any holy book what is up with Florida what are they a bunch of Anti-religious racists?! Not all Muslims are terrorists were more likely to be the terrorists for insulting and beating them until they die, and our presidents father was Muslim so why should that idiot church burn a Qur'an!?

is anyone planning to help keep Karzai on his meds or are we going to keep ignoring how ridiculous hes getting?

At 4/6/11 09:00 PM, SolInvictus wrote: is anyone planning to help keep Karzai on his meds or are we going to keep ignoring how ridiculous hes getting?

So long as ridiculous doesn't equal siding with the Taliban, I don't think the government cares...

No its not unreasonable for someone to destroy a piece of his own property to protest terrorism, but he was protesting the religion itself. If he wanted to protest terrorissm he can burn a picture of osama bin laden.
Also... half of europe was controlled by the catholic churh for a very long time. they did some horrible things too.
Yes it would incite violence and i dont deny they were looking for a reason to go nuts, i also dont deny they found one.
As far as burning more Qurans to make them tired of frming lynch mobs that is ridiculous for two reasons. First, thats like trying to stop a fat kid from eating cake by giving him cake. Second, for that tactic to even seem morally correct you really have to not care about human life.
In conclusion the government should step in on a non-violent protest if it incites violence. If what you say is logical, im going to the zoo to tease the lions and I will throw the biggest fit when the zoo keeper tries to stop me!

At 4/7/11 08:53 AM, Liminoid wrote: If what you say is logical, im going to the zoo to tease the lions and I will throw the biggest fit when the zoo keeper tries to stop me!

The murder of innocent UN workers by some Muslims pissed off about a book being burnt a few months ago in another country is the same as the savaging of someone provoking deadly beasts. No, the UN workers were killed by people, who know that killing is wrong, not by a predator on the African Savannah who was just hungry and works on instinct.

The people who murdered the UN workers are the only people worth blaming in this situation. To say Terry Jones has any responsibility for their deaths is like saying the murders were *somewhat* justified and someone completely unrelated burning the Qu'ran is a mitigating circumstance. Bullshit.

At 4/7/11 09:17 AM, Earfetish wrote:

At 4/7/11 08:53 AM, Liminoid wrote: If what you say is logical, im going to the zoo to tease the lions and I will throw the biggest fit when the zoo keeper tries to stop me!

The murder of innocent UN workers by some Muslims pissed off about a book being burnt a few months ago in another country is the same as the savaging of someone provoking deadly beasts. No, the UN workers were killed by people, who know that killing is wrong, not by a predator on the African Savannah who was just hungry and works on instinct.

The people who murdered the UN workers are the only people worth blaming in this situation. To say Terry Jones has any responsibility for their deaths is like saying the murders were *somewhat* justified and someone completely unrelated burning the Qu'ran is a mitigating circumstance. Bullshit.

You take my context too seriously. I meant the situation to be a generalized satire, not to say these things were exactly the same. The point i was making is that they are the same in the sense that is what happens when you spit into the wind. As far as blame goes its only used for absolving responsibility (which doesnt go away at a whim). Fuck those people who murdered the UN workers they dont have a mitigating circumstance. Saying he is somewhat responsible is saying he was somewhat responsible, not saying its ok to kill people.

At 4/7/11 10:31 AM, Liminoid wrote: Saying he is somewhat responsible is saying he was somewhat responsible, not saying its ok to kill people.

That would be true if burning the book literally had some role in the UN workers deaths. However, it was only relevant in that some people knew that information and consciously decided to act on it a certain way. The killings were done by choice, not by reflex.

Actualy I agree, if anything it was a drop in the bucket and I already pointed out it wasnt a reflex. All I was trying to say is that they did take advantage of an insignifigant happening to commit a horrible act, also that he was told time after time shit would probably hit the fan if he did burn it. I am not assigning terry jones full responsibility or letting those guys off the hook (at all).

At 4/7/11 10:38 AM, adrshepard wrote: That would be true if burning the book literally had some role in the UN workers deaths. However, it was only relevant in that some people knew that information and consciously decided to act on it a certain way. The killings were done by choice, not by reflex.

Regardless, he acted in a manner that he full well KNEW would result in this outcome. His stupid act does not take away fault from the terrorists, but it definitely deserves fault of its own.

At 4/7/11 11:15 AM, Camarohusky wrote: Regardless, he acted in a manner that he full well KNEW would result in this outcome. His stupid act does not take away fault from the terrorists, but it definitely deserves fault of its own.

And what punishment is appropriate for burning your own personal property, and more important people using your actions to their political advantage, resulting in violence? A $50 fine seems excessive.

He didn't know 'full well' it would have this outcome, because it didn't, for months.

The point of free speech is the freedom to cause offence. They're attacking the UN because they don't like that your society is free enough to not punish someone who burns the Qu'ran. They're fucking dicks.

Ok we can all agree the terrorists can gt fucked, now... I dont think anybody wants prior restraint and punishing terry jones wouldnt help. I think all that at least two of us is trying to say is this guy knew if anything did happen it was going to look bad on him.

At 4/7/11 11:38 AM, Earfetish wrote: And what punishment is appropriate for burning your own personal property, and more important people using your actions to their political advantage, resulting in violence? A $50 fine seems excessive.

fault =/= punishment

He didn't know 'full well' it would have this outcome, because it didn't, for months.

It's pretty clear considering the time and the climate thee he knew and perhaps even WANTED this sort of reaction to happen.

The point of free speech is the freedom to cause offence. They're attacking the UN because they don't like that your society is free enough to not punish someone who burns the Qu'ran. They're fucking dicks.

Yeah, and that shows what kind of misguided people they are. However, that still does not make Jones free from all fault. The blood of the people who died is on his hands. If I smack a hornet's nest and they sting a kid to death, I am still at fault (at least morally) because I intentioanlly sitrred them up knowing what they could and likely would do.

So Muslims are hornets.

To say he has blood on his hands is disgusting. The murderers have blood on their hands.

If someone in Iran burnt a copy of the Bible, so a bunch of God-Hates-Fags types went round to the Iranian embassy and shot 8 people, what form would the subsequent moral debate take? Would we say the Iranian had blood on his hands?

If a bunch of gay activists got so pissed off that America allowed homophobic preachers that they started committing domestic terrorism, what form would the subsequent moral debate take?

To compare burning a Qu'ran to kicking a hornets nest / provoking a lion at the zoo, I think, displays elements of racism. Muslims aren't a lesser-species that can't be held responsible for their actions.

Why couldn't the Muslims just burn a freaking bible and call it even?

At 4/7/11 01:25 PM, Earfetish wrote: So Muslims are hornets.

To say he has blood on his hands is disgusting. The murderers have blood on their hands.

If someone in Iran burnt a copy of the Bible, so a bunch of God-Hates-Fags types went round to the Iranian embassy and shot 8 people, what form would the subsequent moral debate take? Would we say the Iranian had blood on his hands?

If a bunch of gay activists got so pissed off that America allowed homophobic preachers that they started committing domestic terrorism, what form would the subsequent moral debate take?

To compare burning a Qu'ran to kicking a hornets nest / provoking a lion at the zoo, I think, displays elements of racism. Muslims aren't a lesser-species that can't be held responsible for their actions.

This is probably the best summary of the debate I have read.

That people get pissed does not excuse murder. I get pissed everyday and have yet to harm someone. And it's not even like they harmed Jones. They killed complete strangers who, for all we know, might've agreed with them.

At 4/7/11 01:25 PM, Earfetish wrote: To say he has blood on his hands is disgusting. The murderers have blood on their hands.

So someone who provokes the killing of others is fine, just as long as the actuall killers are bad people?

If someone in Iran burnt a copy of the Bible, so a bunch of God-Hates-Fags types went round to the Iranian embassy and shot 8 people, what form would the subsequent moral debate take? Would we say the Iranian had blood on his hands?

If he did this knowing what the likely result would be.

If a bunch of gay activists got so pissed off that America allowed homophobic preachers that they started committing domestic terrorism, what form would the subsequent moral debate take?

If there was a situation like this one, we would treat it the same. The fact that you think this is even close shows that you really don't understand the situation at all. There is no record of killing based on such acts for that. There is no group just drooling for a preacher to day that so they can blow something up.

To compare burning a Qu'ran to kicking a hornets nest / provoking a lion at the zoo, I think, displays elements of racism. Muslims aren't a lesser-species that can't be held responsible for their actions.

I can only laugh at how dumb this comment is. Not only are YOU placing racism where there is none, you are equating the whole of Islam with the crazies who do such attacks.

Face it, the guy stirred the pot. If you don't think he has ANY fault in this, you are just naive, or are looking for a right wing soap box to stand on not even realizing the lack of substance you have.

At 4/7/11 06:56 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 4/7/11 01:25 PM, Earfetish wrote: To say he has blood on his hands is disgusting. The murderers have blood on their hands.

So someone who provokes the killing of others is fine, just as long as the actuall killers are bad people?

How did he provoke the killing of others? The people who urged a violent response to this did.

If he did this knowing what the likely result would be.

If there was a situation like this one, we would treat it the same. The fact that you think this is even close shows that you really don't understand the situation at all. There is no record of killing based on such acts for that. There is no group just drooling for a preacher to day that so they can blow something up.

No shit, it's called a hypothetical scenario. A thought experiment.

To compare burning a Qu'ran to kicking a hornets nest / provoking a lion at the zoo, I think, displays elements of racism. Muslims aren't a lesser-species that can't be held responsible for their actions.

I can only laugh at how dumb this comment is. Not only are YOU placing racism where there is none, you are equating the whole of Islam with the crazies who do such attacks.

Face it, the guy stirred the pot. If you don't think he has ANY fault in this, you are just naive, or are looking for a right wing soap box to stand on not even realizing the lack of substance you have.

I'm not right-wing. I disagree with the war in Iraq. I support the legalisation of drugs and whores. Stirring the pot is not a crime. All political discussion is stirring the pot.

Some people's morality is fucking messed up. You think people would recognise which people are wholly responsible for a murder and how trivial and meaningless their justification is.

At 4/7/11 08:51 PM, Earfetish wrote: Some people's morality is fucking messed up. You think people would recognise which people are wholly responsible for a murder and how trivial and meaningless their justification is.

I blame public education and a lack of forced sterilazation.

At 4/7/11 06:56 PM, Camarohusky wrote: So someone who provokes the killing of others is fine, just as long as the actuall killers are bad people?

How does it provoke killing other people? How does one American pastor burning a Koran say make UN workers in Afghanistan a target? The only connection is that the fundamentalists CHOSE to go after them in particular.

If someone in Iran burnt a copy of the Bible, so a bunch of God-Hates-Fags types went round to the Iranian embassy and shot 8 people, what form would the subsequent moral debate take? Would we say the Iranian had blood on his hands?

If he did this knowing what the likely result would be.

Uh, no, we would say that the God Hates types were psychos and the Iranian was a jerk who isn't in any way responsible. That would be the sensible conclusion.

If a bunch of gay activists got so pissed off that America allowed homophobic preachers that they started committing domestic terrorism, what form would the subsequent moral debate take?

If there was a situation like this one, we would treat it the same...There is no group just drooling for a preacher to day that so they can blow something up.

But if there were, you would accept that they were violent psychotics and blame the preacher for being insensitive, right?

To compare burning a Qu'ran to kicking a hornets nest / provoking a lion at the zoo, I think, displays elements of racism. Muslims aren't a lesser-species that can't be held responsible for their actions.

Not only are YOU placing racism where there is none, you are equating the whole of Islam with the crazies who do such attacks.

Oh, it exists, in its most fiendish and subversive form. You excuse the existence of these fundamentalists by placing any blame on the pastor. You can be mad at the pastor because his message is stupid, but you should reserve the whole of your outrage over the violence on the people who actually attacked and murdered the UN workers.

People have choice. People have self-control. We demand that people refrain from violence unless violence is inflicted or about do be inflicted upon them or those they love. The rest of the world demands the same. When you start saying that it's inevitable certain people will act a certain way in response to something, to the extent that you start assigning responsiblity of their behavior to third parties, you de-humanize them by taking away their free will. You relegate their behavior to instinctual reflexes performed without thought or reason, which is EXACTLY the way we describe the behavior of children and animals.
Yes, there is racism here. Your eyes are so clouded with political correctness and an almost nihilistic tolerance of human behavior that you can't see it.

At 4/7/11 09:24 PM, adrshepard wrote: Oh, it exists, in its most fiendish and subversive form. You excuse the existence of these fundamentalists by placing any blame on the pastor. You can be mad at the pastor because his message is stupid, but you should reserve the whole of your outrage over the violence on the people who actually attacked and murdered the UN workers.

When have I ever excused the existence or acts of the fundamentalists? I am mad at the pastor because he did the stupid act almost for the sole purpose of goading the extremists into attacking people.

You relegate their behavior to instinctual reflexes performed without thought or reason, which is EXACTLY the way we describe the behavior of children and animals.

And the bombing of civilians is anything but childish and animalistic?

Yes, there is racism here. Your eyes are so clouded with political correctness and an almost nihilistic tolerance of human behavior that you can't see it.

Perhaps you and the other guy were so quick to play the race card that you placed my statement which was clearly aimed at the extremists, at any race or ethnic group as a whole. I made the analogy of the extremists to hornets, and that is not far off. The fact they resort to extremism shows that they have foresaken the reason. The fact that they resot to extremism because of someone else's twisted will shows that they have foresaken a great deal of their free will. The problem with the burning and the last two posters is that they fail to realize that Muslims and the extremists are not the same.

Burning the Quran= Burning the Bible.

Simple as that.