Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

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.

ok this conversation is at a stalemate. obviously its going nowhere. but thats ok... whats not ok is the baseless personal accusations, especially calling me and someone else racist!

So if you burn their holy book, they respond with violence? Wow, they are civilized, aren't they?

If you burned a bible, the worst you would get is a letter of disapproval.

At 4/8/11 12:17 AM, Liminoid wrote: ok this conversation is at a stalemate. obviously its going nowhere. but thats ok... whats not ok is the baseless personal accusations, especially calling me and someone else racist!

Giving a portion of the population (Islamic fundamentalists) animnalistic qualities and dismissing them as such is indeed racist.

At 4/8/11 11:22 AM, LazyDrunk wrote: Giving a portion of the population (Islamic fundamentalists) animnalistic qualities and dismissing them as such is indeed racist.

Not Islamic fundys. Just the terrorists. They act like children and animals, so there is absolutely no reason not to refer to them in an extremely apt anaolgy as such.

At 4/8/11 11:31 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 4/8/11 11:22 AM, LazyDrunk wrote: Giving a portion of the population (Islamic fundamentalists) animnalistic qualities and dismissing them as such is indeed racist.

Not Islamic fundys. Just the terrorists. They act like children and animals, so there is absolutely no reason not to refer to them in an extremely apt anaolgy as such.

Would it make a difference to you if someone said Palestine was ruled by animals? Do you think that statement would make an impact upon that population, or do you think that because you "know" what the response would be, it doesn't reflect badly upon yourself, granting them the same debasing qualities and authority to slaughter you as the pig you seem to be?

At 4/7/11 01:05 PM, Camarohusky wrote: 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)

If that's the case, blood would be on your own hands if a terrorist read this and took offense to being likened to an animal or child.

Silly.

I never said a terror ist was an animal. i said as an analogy (you must not know what that is) that you dont do shit that can backfire when you know it can fucking backfire!

How about this. burning a quaran when everybody says not to because it gives terrorists an excuse to do what they do and it makes you look stupid is like burning a quaran when everybody says not to because it gives terrorists an excuse to do what they do and it makes you look stupid. i mean have we really regressed to the level of school children? name calling and personal insults? this is supposed to be about whether or not terry jones and the world would be better off if the whole quaran burning thing never hapened. Now who can say? All i know is that I can swallow my fucking pride and take simple advice.

At 4/7/11 09:44 PM, Camarohusky wrote: 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 excuse them by detracting from their ultimate responsibility. Either the extremists are solely responsible, or the pastor is solely responsible.
It doesn't matter what the pastor "intended." What he actually did is what's important. He made a statement about Islam, which is his right. He is not responsible for the actions of those who don't like his statement, even if they threaten violence before he makes it.

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?

To quibble, yes, bombing is, because it takes effort and concentration to make a bomb. You can't do it in a frenzied state, though I suppose people like that could just have them lying around ready.

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.

Yes, now they are. And in any normal society, they would lose their rights as people and go to prison or be executed. But that's only after the fact. You can't say with certainty who the criminals and extremists are until they actually break the law or become violent. You can guess, they can claim they are, but it isn't enough.

I think the biggest factor that hasn't yet been said is whether the behavior of those Muslims is unique or just representative of human behavior (i.e. there are always going to be some crazies among large numbers of people). If it were just as likely that some portion of Christians, Jews, Hindus, etc would respond in the same way to an accordingly offensive act, then your position would be stronger. But, as that other guy said, it probably wouldn't happen, or at least seems far less likely. If you agree with that, then you should see that it's reasonable to hold Muslims, including potential and self-identified extremists, to the same standards as we would hold anyone else.

And that means that the pastor should be able to burn a holy book or say anything else he wants to without the expectation of violence.

At 4/8/11 02:47 PM, adrshepard wrote: I think the biggest factor that hasn't yet been said is whether the behavior of those Muslims is unique or just representative of human behavior (i.e. there are always going to be some crazies among large numbers of people).

Really, are we comparing "Muslims" to "Christians" et cetera now? Do you think that if the car of an intoxicated white man had been impounded in Watts, 1965, that this would also have sparked a riot that left 34 people dead? If not, then what does his tell you?

At 4/8/11 02:47 PM, adrshepard wrote: It doesn't matter what the pastor "intended." What he actually did is what's important. He made a statement about Islam, which is his right. He is not responsible for the actions of those who don't like his statement, even if they threaten violence before he makes it.

And that means that the pastor should be able to burn a holy book or say anything else he wants to without the expectation of violence.

These two statements by adrshepard , say all that need to be said about this incident.
Sure you can argue right & wrong, perhaps abuse of freedom... like his freedom of speach. I am a firm believer in the right to express yourself. Some will not like it, possibly almost everyone will hate it. But that shouldn't mean you don't have a right to express that opinion.

If you don't like it, respond in a like manner. Going around killing people ,innocent people because you disagree is insanity, I don't care what fucking religious belief you follow, seeing an insult from one person, who took a book he owned & then burned, as a reason to kill other people not even involved, is seriously fucked up.

The very reason we have freedom of speech is to protect "offensive" speech. The 1st Amendment guarantees the right to be an asshole. And civilized people have to deal with the fact that people disagree with them.

People who riot over being offended are not civilized. Therefore, we can't pretend that they will act logically, but that also doesn't mean that we wrap them in bubble wrap and walk on egg shells. They are still responsible for their own actions. Not the people who said what they disliked. These guys riot to silence dissent. We are only doing what they want if we silence ourselves.

At 4/10/11 07:07 PM, MrPercie wrote: look, if we can save peoples lives just by not burning books for some shitty attempt to attack extremism and to show we have freedom which we already know we have but do it anyway to be an asshole, thats worth giving up.

Or, we can show that our rights mean something and not cave everytime someone threatens someone else thousands of miles outside of our country.

Standing up for our rights...what a thought.

Hey guys I think we should let people say what they want about Korans and burn them if they want even if terrorists (and terrorists can't be negotiated with, changed or completely rid of, they will always do this) kill heaps of innocents, freedom of speech is great and we will not bow down to terrorists

Burning or threatening to burn Korans out of hate for Muslims and knowing they will get violent and won't be stopped no matter what and will hate us more and more actually falls under freedom of speech believe it or not and I stand firm for freedom of speech and not bowing down to terrorists, we will let them now that we can say what we want because we ARE WESTERN FUCKING COUNTRIES

I love free speech and I love freedom

At 4/10/11 07:07 PM, MrPercie wrote: All i know is, some people died because some other guy burned a book

look, if we can save peoples lives just by not burning books for some shitty attempt to attack extremism and to show we have freedom which we already know we have but do it anyway to be an asshole, thats worth giving up.

trust me, most americans wouldnt give two shits if it was illegal to burna koran, or at least publicly.

Not only this but this whole bullshit about not caving in and not bowing down to terrorist demands is fucking retarded, terrorists will always keep killing people no matter what we do, whether we cave in to their demands OR don't. They'll still murder people. And we may as well NOT make them pissed off at us and take the risk of MORE of these incidents happening.

It's simple really. They are going to kill people either way and we can easily stop at least SOME of the things they do. SOME.

Also I don't think the pastor should be arrested, he didn't directly cause the trouble. I just think he should be told not to do it again.

For some reason people have the idea that if we allow extreme free speech and don't cave in to them it will show them that we aren't going to change.

Honestly that argument doesn't really make sense and they wouldn't stop killing people at all, they'd just work even harder to do a second 9/11 or target more U.N members and US diplomats and shit like that. I remember reading one of the cables on Wikileaks a few weeks back about a U.S government guy who was doing work in the Middle East and he got tortured and killed cause he thought he could make statements about his hate for Arabs and Muslims in particular. Apparently the government hid it or something so more people didn't start pulling the free speech card and getting pissed off.

At 4/11/11 06:22 AM, Saren wrote: They'll still murder people. And we may as well NOT make them pissed off at us and take the risk of MORE of these incidents happening.

So the prospect of self-censorship to appease terrorists doesn't bother you at all?

Also I don't think the pastor should be arrested, he didn't directly cause the trouble. I just think he should be told not to do it again.

He should be told not to exercise his rights as an American. Got it. The US government intervening to discourage the fundamental libertires of a citizen won't at all energize radicals and strengthen the terrorists' cause. Yep.

There are greater aspects to consider than the loss of a few lives.

At 4/11/11 06:28 AM, Soviet wrote: For some reason people have the idea that if we allow extreme free speech and don't cave in to them it will show them that we aren't going to change.

It's not about sending a message to terrorists, it's about preserving who we are as a people.

At 4/11/11 05:39 AM, WolvenBear wrote: Or, we can show that our rights mean something and not cave everytime someone threatens someone else thousands of miles outside of our country.

Don't think, for a second, that I am advocating for this man to be punished or his act outlawed. What he did was wrong, and all I ask is that people see what he did (for what it reeally was) and act as such. This guy has a social punishment in order, not a legal one.

Like I have said numerous times before; just because something is legal doesn't mean that you should do it.

Standing up for our rights...what a thought.

There are tons of things people do that are horrific, offensive, and just plain bad, but my negative feelings for their acts doesn';t mean I want them judicially stopped.

I stopped at the shit about whether or not the faggot from Florida is racist or not and whether or not the belief that mainstream Islam supports terrorism or whatever and whether it's wrong to think so.

YES, FUCKER, IT IS WRONG TO THINK THAT! The man burned a book that belongs to a people who have sects that are radicals and radicalize certain messages of the Koran, to the Muslim population as a whole this is, or should be, a blatant attack on them whether or not he would claim it's against "terrorists". It's the same damn thing as burning the Bible in protest of Evangelical Extremists, you're not just attacking these extremists whether you think so or not, you're attacking every Christian.

Every religion has extremists, not all extremists are violent but Christian and Muslim extremists tend to be the most violent. Come on dude, only 300 million of the some amount of a billion Muslims are extremists or might become extremists. Labeling a peoples through a small percentage is just fucking retarded and it's this kind of thinking that I see taking over Americans every day. If you're not going to think of the repercussions of your stupid actions maybe you DO deserve an attack on your country since you're setting a bad example just as the "terrorists" are for their countries. You definitely deserve to be reprimanded in some way, I mean, I wouldn't sit around if someone under my authority obviously caused an attack on my country, you'd have to be one of the soft headed idiots who still believe that since there was no "state" of Palestine that Palestine wasn't wrongfully taken over to not!

Seriously, just from reading a little bit of your post I could tell that you are a misinformed snob who probably thinks his country is better than other certain countries based on amount of wealth alone.

FUCK the Koran FUCK the fucking Muslims, I'll burn your fucking Koran if I want to (not that I would otherwise I might get hurt plus I personally don't have anything against Muslims, just the fucking crazy ones), GO FREEDOM OF SPEECH OONTS OONTS OONTS

Come at me terrorists, we won't bow down to you

The same goes with the Westboro Baptist Church, they should be allowed to say what they want and only idiots would get offended by them. People are soft.

Terrorists are terrible people and by showing them that we won't change our ways they will eventually realize their cheap terrorist tactics won't work, it's very sad these hard working men died but I would NEVER sacrifice freedom of speech for something so trivial

PEOPLE SHOULD BE ABLE TO SAY WHAT THEY WANT AND IF PEOPLE GET OFFENDED THEN THEY SHOULD JUST DEAL WITH IT, TERRORISTS WILL EVENTUALLY STOP DOING TERRORIST ACTS, WE WILL NOT BE WEAKENED

At 4/11/11 11:26 AM, Camarohusky wrote: Don't think, for a second, that I am advocating for this man to be punished or his act outlawed. What he did was wrong,

Well, no. It wasn't. It was freedom of speech. And me telling you you suck is not only a right, it is an ESSENTIAL part of being free. Whil you may not see it, what this man did was essential to us remaining a free society.

and all I ask is that people see what he did (for what it reeally was) and act as such. This guy has a social punishment in order, not a legal one.

Except he did nothing wrong. And therefore shouldn't be punished.

Like I have said numerous times before; just because something is legal doesn't mean that you should do it.

Yet there's no reason he SHOULDN'T do it.

Here's the problem. For this argument to work...something must be legal and objectively wrong. This was not objectively wrong. As such, the argument is null. If some dude came out and said "If anyone ever criticizes beating your wife again...I'll kill someone!"...would you be in favor of telling people NOT to criticize wife beating?

That's the case here too, boss.

There are tons of things people do that are horrific, offensive, and just plain bad, but my negative feelings for their acts doesn';t mean I want them judicially stopped.

If something is horrifying, and you don't want it stopped...there's something wrong with you. Offensive is ESSENTIAL to liberty. If I am not free to piss you off, I am not free period. And "plain bad" is so subjective and passive that it means nothing.

this pastor is a fucking idiot. his actions have caused the death of over a dozen.
nothing more and nothing less.

he should be removed from the church for this bullshit.

At 4/11/11 11:26 AM, Camarohusky wrote: Don't think, for a second, that I am advocating for this man to be punished or his act outlawed. What he did was wrong, and all I ask is that people see what he did (for what it reeally was) and act as such. This guy has a social punishment in order, not a legal one.

;;;
I disagree.
I don't think this guy did anything wrong.
IF he had taken a bible & burned it, I'd say the same thing.
Here's how I see it, because its the only way I can explain it. IF he had taken a copy of JRR Tolkien's -"Lord Of The Rings" & went in his backyard & burned it, it is no different than burning the bible. the koran or anything else ....
UNLESS
he didn't own it.
IF he had gone to a your house & took your copy of any of those books & burnt it, then it would be different.
But he took his own property, something he had purchased or was given & was his. Then he destroyed it.
So what ?
You all have the right to take anything of yours & pretty much do whatever you want with it, as long as you don't infringe on the rights of others.

I fail to see the relavence of some religious groups fantasy/fiction writings & how that is in any way, any more important than any other published work.
For You Personally, it may be important, or relevant ,or holy or any other label you wish to put on it. But to me it is a book, I don't believe you should burn books.
Not any book, but I still believe you should have the right to do with your property anything you wish, as long as you don't 'infringe on the rights of others'
These muslims who are killing people thousands of miles away from this guy are in the wrong, he isn't.
As l Iong as he was the owner .

At 4/13/11 03:56 AM, WolvenBear wrote: Well, no. It wasn't.

Um, yes it was. Liek I said, just because something is legal doesn't mean you should do it, and in no way means it's right. If I went around espousing nasty racist things that would be wrong, but it is well within my rights.

Except he did nothing wrong. And therefore shouldn't be punished.

Yes he did. He intentionally insulted an entire people and called them all terrorists. If that's not wrong, I don't know what is.

Here's the problem. For this argument to work...something must be legal and objectively wrong.

But he did do something wrong. He acted in a manner that did cause most people to react with disgust and shame.

If something is horrifying, and you don't want it stopped...there's something wrong with you. Offensive is ESSENTIAL to liberty. If I am not free to piss you off, I am not free period. And "plain bad" is so subjective and passive that it means nothing.

Just because you're free to offend someone doesn't take away the fact that you offended them. In our society, we view it as wrong to do certain acts. Religious discrimination and insults definitely belongs in that category. Just because it is legal doesn't make it right.

At 4/13/11 09:15 AM, morefngdbs wrote: I disagree.
I don't think this guy did anything wrong.
IF he had taken a bible & burned it, I'd say the same thing.

And that is your opinion, but I can guarantee that there are quite a large group of people who do think he did something wrong.

You all have the right to take anything of yours & pretty much do whatever you want with it, as long as you don't infringe on the rights of others.

OK. Both of you. Stop talking about rights. No one here is questioning this guy's right to do what he did. Seriously. It's getting really annoying talknig about a subject and then having people refute it with something I have stipulated to that is very much unrelated.

However, we as a society have still determined that there are a few rthigns you can do with your own property that are still wrong. Is burning a cross only wrong if you stole the posts & gas?

I fail to see the relavence of some religious groups fantasy/fiction writings & how that is in any way, any more important than any other published work.

I really hate this response. This sort of response is extremely dense and selfish. You are essentially saying "I don't personzally care about religions so therefore I can speak as if they don't matter at all." Well sorry, bud, the VAST majority of people on this planet believe in a religion and hold the respective holy books to be sacred and almost a part of themselves. Just because you don't believe does not dimish the impact of desecrating such a book. It would be totally awesome, and really help this forum, if more people had empathy and gave even the slightest effort to imagine what others felt like before they made conclusions.

I watched the Nick Berg murder video shortly after your Islamist propagators posted it on the internet.

I feel that's enough justification to decimate the entire Middle East in retaliation.

At 4/13/11 11:15 AM, Camarohusky wrote: Yes he did. He intentionally insulted an entire people and called them all terrorists. If that's not wrong, I don't know what is.

It's not wrong. It just is. Some people are jerks and do things that piss others off. It's part of life. Burning a book, no matter what book it is, doesn't hurt or damage anything or anyone besides the book. I don't sympathize with the people who claim to be offended, even those who aren't violent, because they don't accept this simple truth.

Disliking an action, and those who do it, is not the same as declaring it to be "wrong."

At 4/13/11 11:15 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 4/13/11 09:15 AM, morefngdbs wrote: I disagree.
I don't think this guy did anything wrong.
IF he had taken a bible & burned it, I'd say the same thing.

And that is your opinion, but I can guarantee that there are quite a large group of people who do think he did something wrong.

You all have the right to take anything of yours & pretty much do whatever you want with it, as long as you don't infringe on the rights of others.

OK. Both of you. Stop talking about rights. No one here is questioning this guy's right to do what he did. Seriously. It's getting really annoying talknig about a subject and then having people refute it with something I have stipulated to that is very much unrelated.

;;;
But the fact of the matter ...is it isn't unrelated.
It is related, 100% related to you can not infringe on his rights , because others feel "their rights" some how superceed his !

I never said people don't have the right to be upset.
I definately don't believe they have to 'right' to kill strangers, nor do they have a 'right' to kill him.

I didn't include your rant about how everyone is suppose to bow down & be respectful of mental illness.
I'm not going to apologise for it here & I know I won't have to ise for it when I die..
& I know this might piss you off as well
But Santa , the Easter bunny & the boogey man aren't real either & there is just as much proof they are real, as God -as portrayed by any religious group- is real.

Why isn't anyone forcing us to be respectful of those ?

I believe there are a bunch of people out there with posters proclaiming 'God Hates Fags'. I've heard they protest military and homosexual funerals. In fact, I've heard there are these fundamentalist Muslims in the Middle East who HANG gay people!

I've also heard that sexuality is EVEN MORE integral to a person than religion.

If gay people in England attacked the Iranian embassy and killed a couple of people because the USA and Iran allows such homophobic statements, do we cast ANY BLAME at all on the Iranians / Americans with anti-gay views? Yes, they are deplorable views, but it's integral to their religious freedom that they hold such views. The holy text they view as infallible, and that the burning of which would be deeply offensive, states in black and white that homosexuality is evil.

C'mon now people.

At 4/13/11 11:57 AM, morefngdbs wrote: But the fact of the matter ...is it isn't unrelated.

Yes it is. Whether what he did was wrong has ZERO effect on whether what he did was right or not.

I never said people don't have the right to be upset.

Making people upset intentionally is wrong. I don't care if you can do it without legal recourse, that still does not make it right. I am speaking of social and morla wrongs, not legal. His right to burn it legal, whether it is wrong or not is social and moral.

I definately don't believe they have to 'right' to kill strangers, nor do they have a 'right' to kill him.

That's true, and those who kill people are both legally and morally wrong.

I didn't include your rant about how everyone is suppose to bow down & be respectful of mental illness.
Why isn't anyone forcing us to be respectful of those ?

Oi... I don't give two shits about your views. You could be a hindu-christian-atheist for all I care. Whaat you believe is not important here. Your flat out disrespect for those who is the problem. You talk about religion as if it nota cfactor in the debate. You say "I don't believe it, therefore there is no belief in it." Well guess what. You're wrong. BILLIONS of people believe it and to blow off their opinion is just disrespectful and terrible debate. If you want to debate the merits of religion, go to the other thread. All I ask is that you be realistic and try to understand people. You don't have to believe what someone else does to attempt to understand. You don't even have to like, or respect, what they believe to understand it. When you ignore this you essentially take yourself out of the debate.

We are debating a religiously charged subject, and to dismiss religion's power and legitimacy over people outright is to miss a HUGE part of this issue.

Until you can at least make a reasonable (Atheists believe in reason, right?) attempt to understand the issue as a whole, please do us all a favor and stay away, so we can have a real debate.