Burn a Quran day

[tsig]

Originally Posted by Jonnyclueless

Since when does someone have the right to make a rule such as 'burning a certain book is bad' and then declare that you have done something bad and hurtful?

Why should it be my fault if someone decided to base their feelings on something as silly as a book?

What if I decided it is hurtful and offensive for someone to be offended by the burning of a book? Therefore the only reason someone could be offended by burning a book is to offend me and therefore they are a hurtful person.

I am sorry, but I have absolutely no sympathy for anyone claiming to have their feelings hurt because of a burned book that is in wide circulation and print. And I don't care what the book is about. If someone's feelings are hurt by a book being burned then I believe that person deserves to have their feelings hurt until they grow up.

Here's how this works.

You burn a book and someone else kills someone because you burnt a book and it's all your fault.


ETA: Those who make posts disagreeing with me are offensive to me and to prove it I've got this cat in my lap and if anyone chooses to argue with me the cat gets it.

[bokonon]

Originally Posted by tsig

Those who make posts disagreeing with me are offensive to me and to prove it I've got this cat in my lap and if anyone chooses to argue with me the cat gets it.

If you don't buy this magazine argument, we I'll shoot this dog cat.

[BillyJoe]

Originally Posted by Robin

How exactly is burning Qurans going to do this? By what mechanism do you think that this would work?

I didn't say that is the only thing that could be done. In fact, it is one of many things that can be done to break down the intolerance. They all need to be done, often and everywhere.

Quote:

To the Muslims who would agree with you, burning a Quran is a hurtful message of intolerance.

How exactly are they agreeing with me then?

Quote:

To the Muslims who embrace violence it is a godsend that drives a wedge between moderate Muslims and the rest of the community.

That's why it has to be done often and everywhere. Too many targets. And eventually the message gets across that this is not one person objecting to their intolerance of others' points of view.

Quote:

If you want to send a message about intimidation and free speech then there are much better ways of doing it, as I have already pointed out.

There are many ways.
Ways that work, and ways that don't (or not very well).
Do you think gay rights was won by diplomatic means alone. Do you really think that there would be gay rights now if there weren't gay right activists who demanded equal rights instead of just people asking please.

Quote:

So, where exactly is the upside?

Something might actually change.

[Emperor_Gestahl]

Of course he's allowed to burn any book he wants, is anyone actually debating against that? He can do it, it's just foolhardy because it will likely aid the real terrorists instead of hurting them.

[Skeptic]

Originally Posted by BillyJoe

You are assuming that religion is logical.
That is a bad assumption.
I am deadly certain they would be able to rationalise such an act.

Very easily. They kill more Muslims than non-Muslims, by quite a margin. Those were apostate bad Muslims in that building, you see.

[Dipayan]

Originally Posted by westprog

There seems to be consensus that the extremists are wrong to react by killing and rioting. However, it's also true that there is nothing that can be done about it, short term.

Sure there is. If it's Muslim extremists you are trying to appease, you can convert to Islam and follow their example.

Originally Posted by westprog

So given the choice of options, when deciding what to do, should we take the option which results in the death of innocent people, or the one that doesn't?

I don't know, you tell me. When a plane is hijacked, does the US negotiate with terrorists? Because that is about direct fatal consequences. As opposed to some politically created group situations.

Originally Posted by westprog

What cause some confusion is that the cause and effect isn't very clear, and in any case, it will happen to some person who lives a long way off and is probably very different to us. .

I think the mistake you are making here is in believing that an extremist will not hurt others as long as a Koran isn't burnt. The point of extremism is to react extremely. So for example, an American burnt the Koran, 2 Afghans died in a riot. Does that make sense? Of course not. Because it was not about the Koran burning. So the question is, do you really want everyone to go through their lives mindful of not stepping on the toes of some fundamentalist groups who are just looking for any little excuse to erupt violently?

Originally Posted by westprog

But put some gunman in the next room with the gun to the head of a child, and most people will go along with even quite unreasonable demands. We certainly wouldn't try to find out the one thing that would upset him most and do it.

And what if the gunman had killed children in the past, and you knew that it wasn't about the unreasonable demands that was being made - even if every demand was met, the gunman would still find something to shoot the boy over?

[Dipayan]

Originally Posted by Jonnyclueless

Since when does someone have the right to make a rule such as 'burning a certain book is bad' and then declare that you have done something bad and hurtful?

Why should it be my fault if someone decided to base their feelings on something as silly as a book?

What if I decided it is hurtful and offensive for someone to be offended by the burning of a book? Therefore the only reason someone could be offended by burning a book is to offend me and therefore they are a hurtful person.

I am sorry, but I have absolutely no sympathy for anyone claiming to have their feelings hurt because of a burned book that is in wide circulation and print. And I don't care what the book is about. If someone's feelings are hurt by a book being burned then I believe that person deserves to have their feelings hurt until they grow up.

This.

[westprog]

Originally Posted by Jonnyclueless

Since when does someone have the right to make a rule such as 'burning a certain book is bad' and then declare that you have done something bad and hurtful?

Why should it be my fault if someone decided to base their feelings on something as silly as a book?

What if I decided it is hurtful and offensive for someone to be offended by the burning of a book? Therefore the only reason someone could be offended by burning a book is to offend me and therefore they are a hurtful person.

I am sorry, but I have absolutely no sympathy for anyone claiming to have their feelings hurt because of a burned book that is in wide circulation and print. And I don't care what the book is about. If someone's feelings are hurt by a book being burned then I believe that person deserves to have their feelings hurt until they grow up.

That's a perfect summary of the "They're wrong, we're right" attitude. They "deserve to have their feelings hurt". I wonder how this works with parents. "There's nothing special about that teddy bear." Meanwhile...

Quote:

At least 1 killed, several hurt during protest against U.S. Quran burning in Kabul, Afghanistan, security sources tell NBC News

But the good news is that it's almost certainly nobody we know...

[BillyJoe]

Originally Posted by westprog

That's a perfect summary of the "They're wrong, we're right" attitude. They "deserve to have their feelings hurt".

You have lost sight of what this is all about:
This is about intolerance.

There are muslims who won't tolerate disagreement with their point of view under pain of death. Death to the infidel. Death to the apostate. The koran is the source of this intolerance. Therefore, in defense of free speech, in defense of freedom to put a different point of view than that allowed by the koran, the koran is burnt.

To hijack another saying:
The only thing we should be intolerant of is intolerance itself.

Quote:

I wonder how this works with parents. "There's nothing special about that teddy bear." Meanwhile...

Another huge analogy fail.
They're not wresting korans from the cluthes of muslims and burning them, they're burning their own korans as a symbolic protest against intolerance.

[westprog]

Originally Posted by BillyJoe

You have lost sight of what this is all about:
This is about intolerance.

There are muslims who won't tolerate disagreement with their point of view under pain of death. Death to the infidel. Death to the apostate. The koran is the source of this intolerance. Therefore, in defense of free speech, in defense of freedom to put a different point of view than that allowed by the koran, the koran is burnt.

To hijack another saying:
The only thing we should be intolerant of is intolerance itself.

Another huge analogy fail.
They're not wresting korans from the cluthes of muslims and burning them, they're burning their own korans as a symbolic protest against intolerance.

I can just imagine the scene.

Billyjoe is sitting with his friends brooding about intolerance. "Intolerance sickens me" he says. "We should do something about it." There's a pause. Someone speaks up. "I know! To demonstrate our tolerance, let's burn a Koran!"

Instant applause. The guys jump in the pickup and head to the local bookshop. They buy all the korans they have. (Two). Then they walk over to the local convenience store and start a small fire on the sidewalk. The owner comes out.

"What are you doing, please" he asks. "We're burning a koran, in a protest against intolerance, and for free speech". The shop owner turns pale. "I have lived in this country for ten years, I work hard, I am a good citizen. Why are you persecuting me?"

BillyJoe shakes his head. "If you think you're being persecuted, that's because you're confused. This is our Koran we're burning. We're not taking your Koran away from you. But since the Koran produces intolerance, we think it should be burned."

The owners wife peeks out. "And stop making your wife wear a headscarf." She runs inside crying. The owner calls out to a passing policeman. "Please - can you stop this? They are burning the holy book - the words of God - right here in front of me."

The cop shakes his head. "I'm sorry, sir. This is considered an exercise in free speech. There's nothing I can do."

The book is by now totally consumed. The guys climb back into the pickup truck. "And this wasn't a racial thing, by the way" they call out as they drive off.

And tolerance is thus advanced.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by noreligion

Burning a flag, the symbol of the American government, is an action that is covered by free speech. Burning a koran has nothing whatsoever to do with burning a symbol of the country.

??? So those two actions are entirely different in form and spirit and aren't analogous in any way ?

Odd.

[westprog]

Originally Posted by tsig

Here's how this works.

You burn a book and someone else kills someone because you burnt a book and it's all your fault.

Which is a paraphrase of who? Since nobody I've read has said anything like that.

All the people who've said that burning the book was a stupid, bigoted act have made it clear that the extremists who carry out violent acts should be held responsible for them. Nobody has said that it's all the fault of the book burners.

Quote:

ETA: Those who make posts disagreeing with me are offensive to me and to prove it I've got this cat in my lap and if anyone chooses to argue with me the cat gets it.

If I really thought that someone on JREF would commit a violent act if I argued with him, I'd put him on ignore without a second thought.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by noreligion

It's been nice talking to you but it's time to go on ignore. Had you answered a question this wouldn't have happened.

So... the actual answers given don't qualify ?

[westprog]

Originally Posted by Belz...

So... the actual answers given don't qualify ?

Well, if you will persist in disagreeing with him...

[BillyJoe]

westprog,

I don't know what you think your trying to achieve by mischaracterising people's views with your silly little stories.
I suppose it excuses you from having to actually address the argument.

Oh well...

Anyway, whilst we're into story telling, try this one for size:
(at least it's actually funny)

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/soc...914-15atz.html

regards,
BillyJoe

[Robin]

Originally Posted by westprog

The upside is feeling good about supporting free speech while someone a long way off suffers the consequences. Win-win!

Sort of "I may not agree with what I do but I am willing to fight to someone else's death for my right to do it".

[Robin]

Originally Posted by Jonnyclueless

Since when does someone have the right to make a rule such as 'burning a certain book is bad' and then declare that you have done something bad and hurtful?

Why should it be my fault if someone decided to base their feelings on something as silly as a book?

What if I decided it is hurtful and offensive for someone to be offended by the burning of a book? Therefore the only reason someone could be offended by burning a book is to offend me and therefore they are a hurtful person.

I am sorry, but I have absolutely no sympathy for anyone claiming to have their feelings hurt because of a burned book that is in wide circulation and print. And I don't care what the book is about. If someone's feelings are hurt by a book being burned then I believe that person deserves to have their feelings hurt until they grow up.

Why is it your right to decide that they ought not to invest so much emotion in a book?

It is not your fault that they invest so much emotion in a book - but if you know that something causes distress to someone and they have never done anything bad to you, then why would you go ahead and cause them distress?

[FireGarden]

Originally Posted by BillyJoe

Anyway, whilst we're into story telling, try this one for size:
(at least it's actually funny)

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/soc...914-15atz.html

regards,
BillyJoe

That analogy fails since the God Delusion is no way precious to atheists. In fact, I struggle to think of a book which is.

I do think that if enough books were burnt by enough people, then there would be many -- atheists included -- who would protest. Not for the loss of the books. But for the message the book burning sends.

Suppose burning the God Delusion was defended as a good idea by people in authority. Suppose Obama was asked about it and he merely shrugged his shoulders. What then? You wouldn't feel persecuted in the slightest? I would feel that atheists are disliked and that the dislike of atheists is not seen as a problem by those in authority.

Burning the books is not intended as a means to remove the book from those who want to read it. It sends a message about the value of the books and what is thought of the people who think it is a good book.

Burning the Quran is as insulting as calling a black man a ******.

[Jonnyclueless]

Originally Posted by Robin

Why is it your right to decide that they ought not to invest so much emotion in a book?

Never said it was.

Quote:

It is not your fault that they invest so much emotion in a book - but if you know that something causes distress to someone and they have never done anything bad to you, then why would you go ahead and cause them distress?

I don't need to answer to them for anything I do. Do they need to give me a reason for their being distressed at what I do in order to validate being distressed? Why is there an assumption that anything I do is because of their feelings?

If they know being distressed causes me to be distressed and I have done nothing to them, why would they go ahead and be distressed? See how this works? It can work both ways. Which is why it's a bogus argument. It's an attempt to simply use guilt to force people to adhere to ones own beliefs.

And this I think anyone who uses such cheap tactics deserves to be distressed until they can learn to grow up and act like an adult.

[Jonnyclueless]

Originally Posted by westprog

That's a perfect summary of the "They're wrong, we're right" attitude. They "deserve to have their feelings hurt". I wonder how this works with parents. "There's nothing special about that teddy bear." Meanwhile...

Exactly. Behavior that is to be expected from a child. Not adults.

[Jonnyclueless]

Originally Posted by westprog

And tolerance is thus advanced.

And why does it have to be about tolerance?

Suppose I enjoy lighting my farts and using a burning Koran produces just the right resonance? And thus robust burning farts is advanced.

How about if I have a religion that tells you what you can't do and I can then use to claim you are hurting me and disrespecting my god? What if my religion says that you posting on this forum is an abomination to my god? And therefore the only reason you have to post is to be hurtful and disrespectful to my god? And that you're now doing it knowing you are disrespecting my god.

And thus you are furthering the advancement of tolerance...

[westprog]

Originally Posted by BillyJoe

westprog,

I don't know what you think your trying to achieve by mischaracterising people's views with your silly little stories.
I suppose it excuses you from having to actually address the argument.

Exactly what did I mischaracterise? Did you or did you not claim that burning Korans was an aid to tolerance? All I did was point out what that means in practice.

I must admit, it was such a daft idea that I half thought it was intended satirically.

[westprog]

Originally Posted by Robin

Sort of "I may not agree with what I do but I am willing to fight to someone else's death for my right to do it".

Exactly. Consequences tucked away thousands of miles distant.

[westprog]

Originally Posted by Robin

Why is it your right to decide that they ought not to invest so much emotion in a book?

It is not your fault that they invest so much emotion in a book - but if you know that something causes distress to someone and they have never done anything bad to you, then why would you go ahead and cause them distress?

I have the right to do this and therefore by doing it I am defending my right to do it and hence defending my rights.

[BillyJoe]

Originally Posted by FireGarden

That analogy fails since the God Delusion is no way precious to atheists. In fact, I struggle to think of a book which is.

You were supposed to laugh not analyse a joke.

Quote:

I do think that if enough books were burnt by enough people, then there would be many -- atheists included -- who would protest. Not for the loss of the books. But for the message the book burning sends.

Except the authors who would have free publicity and increased sales.
In any case the only cause for concern is if people start burning unique books. The others can all be replaced so what could it possibly matter. In any case, the impact of book burning would quickly be lost if everyone started doing it, so the practice would gradually die out and, I suspect, everyone would be just a little more tolerant in the end.

Quote:

Suppose burning the God Delusion was defended as a good idea by people in authority. Suppose Obama was asked about it and he merely shrugged his shoulders. What then? You wouldn't feel persecuted in the slightest? I would feel that atheists are disliked and that the dislike of atheists is not seen as a problem by those in authority.

I don't know about you, but I would merely congratulate Obama for being so sensible and go about my business.

Quote:

Burning the books is not intended as a means to remove the book from those who want to read it. It sends a message about the value of the books and what is thought of the people who think it is a good book.

That's exactly right.

Quote:

Burning the Quran is as insulting as calling a black man a ******.

The difference is that the koran is piece of ****

[BillyJoe]

Originally Posted by westprog

Exactly what did I mischaracterise? Did you or did you not claim that burning Korans was an aid to tolerance? All I did was point out what that means in practice.

I must admit, it was such a daft idea that I half thought it was intended satirically.

Your story was a parody and a strawman.

The koran is a book of intolerance.
The only thing we should be intolerant of is intolerance itself.
Does that answer your question?

[Robin]

Originally Posted by BillyJoe

I didn't say that is the only thing that could be done. In fact, it is one of many things that can be done to break down the intolerance. They all need to be done, often and everywhere.

That does not answer my question. I asked by what mechanism it would work.

Quote:

How exactly are they agreeing with me then?

They would agree that violence should not be used to shut down free speech.

They would just not agree that burning a Quran is an intelligent way of getting this message across.

Quote:

That's why it has to be done often and everywhere. Too many targets. And eventually the message gets across that this is not one person objecting to their intolerance of others' points of view.

The message would get through to whom exactly?

Quote:

There are many ways.
Ways that work, and ways that don't (or not very well).

On that we are very much agreed.

Quote:

Do you think gay rights was won by diplomatic means alone.

No, but I think it was done by effective means.

Quote:

Something might actually change.

Again - by what mechanism.

Step 1 Everybody burns a Quran as often as possible
Step 2 ....
Step 3 Islamic militants get the idea that violence is not going to prevent free speech (or whatever result you think it is going to have)

What is step 2?

[Robin]

Originally Posted by Jonnyclueless

Never said it was.

You said they ought to have their feelings hurt until they grow up. That is a judgement that their feelings are wrong and ought to be altered. Why is it your right to decide that their feelings are wrong and ought to be altered?

Quote:

I don't need to answer to them for anything I do. Do they need to give me a reason for their being distressed at what I do in order to validate being distressed? Why is there an assumption that anything I do is because of their feelings?

The assumption is that if somebody doesn't do anything bad to you then you don't do anything bad to them, unless your absolutely can't help it or there is some even more pressing reason for doing something that would hurt them.

In some countries they get upset if you hold your hand up towards them, knuckles outward with the middle finger extended upwards.

Some people might even punch you if you do it.

I think we can both agree that it is silly and irrational to become upset by the configuration of somebody's fingers.

So ought we to do this to everybody as often as possible until they grow up?

Or should we accept that if it offends them and they have not done anything to deserve being offended that we should just decide not to do it?

Is it really such a curtailment of free expression if I decide not to flip the bird at an innocent bystander?

[westprog]

Originally Posted by Robin

You said they ought to have their feelings hurt until they grow up. That is a judgement that their feelings are wrong and ought to be altered. Why is it your right to decide that their feelings are wrong and ought to be altered?

The assumption is that if somebody doesn't do anything bad to you then you don't do anything bad to them, unless your absolutely can't help it or there is some even more pressing reason for doing something that would hurt them.

In some countries they get upset if you hold your hand up towards them, knuckles outward with the middle finger extended upwards.

Some people might even punch you if you do it.

I think we can both agree that it is silly and irrational to become upset by the configuration of somebody's fingers.

So ought we to do this to everybody as often as possible until they grow up?

Or should we accept that if it offends them and they have not done anything to deserve being offended that we should just decide not to do it?

Is it really such a curtailment of free expression if I decide not to flip the bird at an innocent bystander?

It's not even a matter of restricting your right to do so. It's just an acceptance that deliberately causing offence and distress to other people is not, in itself, a good thing to do. It might be that when there is a need, or a provocation, that it is necessary to offend people. There's never a right not to be offended. However, someone who deliberately upsets other people for the sake of it isn't being a provocative martyr for free speech. He's being a ****, a complete ******* and a ******* ****.

[westprog]

Originally Posted by BillyJoe

Your story was a parody and a strawman.

Of course it was a parody. That's because the idea that burning Korans promotes tolerance is so absurd that parody is the only adequate response.

Quote:

The koran is a book of intolerance.
The only thing we should be intolerant of is intolerance itself.
Does that answer your question?

I've answered it myself. I've shown what this "intolerance of intolerance" means in practice.

[FireGarden]

Originally Posted by BillyJoe

You were supposed to laugh not analyse a joke.

sorry

Quote:

Except the authors who would have free publicity and increased sales.
In any case the only cause for concern is if people start burning unique books.

This isn't about protecting books. Burning a Quran is a message, and the message isn't "that's one less copy that can be read!"

Quote:

In any case, the impact of book burning would quickly be lost if everyone started doing it, so the practice would gradually die out and, I suspect, everyone would be just a little more tolerant in the end.

This is an unfounded assumption. Maybe the power of the n-word would diminish if every one started using it. They have the right to, after all. But you can't simply assume the offensiveness of the word will diminish.

Quote:

I don't know about you, but I would merely congratulate Obama for being so sensible and go about my business.

Either you don't see the message in burning a book -- I tried to spell it out. Or you wouldn't mind a world where it was okay to hate atheists. Do you think people who burn pro-atheist texts would hire an atheist? Do you think they might boycott shops run by atheists?

Quote:

That's exactly right.

So you do see the message in burning a book.

Quote:

The difference is that the koran is piece of ****

The difference is that you don't mind bigotry aimed against Muslims.

[BillyJoe]

Originally Posted by Robin

Again - by what mechanism.

Step 1 Everybody burns a Quran as often as possible
Step 2 ....
Step 3 Islamic militants get the idea that violence is not going to prevent free speech (or whatever result you think it is going to have)

What is step 2?

It's not going to end up with everyone burning a koran as aften as possible. When it gets beyond a certain point (enough koran burnings by enough people), the activity would begin to lose its effect and therefore lose its appeal as a good means of showing contempt for the intolerance promoted in the koran and by those for whom the koran is the holy book by which they act intolerantly towards those who have different beliefs (such as those burning the korans). The outcome, then, is a greater tolerance by muslims towards koran burning. A beginning...

In my opinion a great battle was lost when newspapers and magazines around the world decided not to post the Danish cartoons.

There are a couple of historical parallels:

In the past, blacks were thought to be inferior human beings, fit only to be slaves. Diplomacy didn't win the day. It did help, but if it were only for diplomacy, blacks would still be thought of as inferior human beings, fit only to be slaves. It took blacks who were prepared to slap their equality in the face of those who would keep them enslaved, angry and upset because their neat little lives were being destroyed by those uppity blacks.

Nothing is won by just asking please.

Same with the gay rights movement. Diplomacy was needed to get the actual laws through, but the whole thing would not have even gotten off the ground if it weren't for those who demanded equal rights. They needed to upset the cosy lives of those who would deny them a legitimacy. They needed to upset the pastors and priests. They needed to upset society. It could not have been achieved with quiet and reasonable debate alone.

Maybe you don't see a parallel.
Maybe you need to live in a muslim country where sharia is law to understand the parallel.

[BillyJoe]

Originally Posted by westprog

Of course it was a parody.

It was parody filled with straw.

Quote:

I've answered it myself. I've shown what this "intolerance of intolerance" means in practice.

You can't be serious.

[BillyJoe]

Originally Posted by FireGarden

The difference is that you don't mind bigotry aimed against Muslims.

BillyJoe supports the burning of korans in protest at the intolerance promoted in that book against those with different beliefs (death to the infidel!).
FireGarden accuses him of bigotry against muslims.

[Robin]

Originally Posted by BillyJoe

It's not going to end up with everyone burning a koran as aften as possible. When it gets beyond a certain point (enough koran burnings by enough people), the activity would begin to lose its effect and therefore lose its appeal as a good means of showing contempt for the intolerance promoted in the koran and by those for whom the koran is the holy book by which they act intolerantly towards those who have different beliefs (such as those burning the korans). The outcome, then, is a greater tolerance by muslims towards koran burning. A beginning...

Seems like everyone wants to burn a Quran, but everybody has a different reason for doing it. Now it is apparently about how intolerant the Quran is.

Be that as it may, you are still not answering the question.

You are talking about step 1 and step 3, but you still have not told us how it is supposed to work.

Step 1. Burn Qurans
Step 2. ?
Step 3. Muslims start acting tolerantly towards people who like to burn Qurans

What is step 2?

What is it about burning Qurans that brings about this outcome?

.

[westprog]

Originally Posted by Robin

Seems like everyone wants to burn a Quran, but everybody has a different reason for doing it. Now it is apparently about how intolerant the Quran is.

Be that as it may, you are still not answering the question.

You are talking about step 1 and step 3, but you still have not told us how it is supposed to work.

Step 1. Burn Qurans
Step 2. ?
Step 3. Muslims start acting tolerantly towards people who like to burn Qurans

What is step 2?

What is it about burning Qurans that brings about this outcome?

.

It starts with the assumption that other people are Not Like Us.

Most people, when told that their beliefs are stupid and evil, will take it as at least implying that they are themselves stupid and evil, and that the person saying this is their enemy. It's true that if you keep it up, it will be somewhat deadened by familiarity - but it will in no way lead to friendship and mutual understanding.

Let's be bigoted against bigotry! Hate those haters!

[tsig]

Originally Posted by BillyJoe

BillyJoe supports the burning of korans in protest at the intolerance promoted in that book against those with different beliefs (death to the infidel!).
FireGarden accuses him of bigotry against muslims.

That seems to be their last ditch defense. When all other arguments fail throw the bigotry bomb.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by westprog

It starts with the assumption that other people are Not Like Us.

Most people, when told that their beliefs are stupid and evil, will take it as at least implying that they are themselves stupid and evil, and that the person saying this is their enemy. It's true that if you keep it up, it will be somewhat deadened by familiarity - but it will in no way lead to friendship and mutual understanding.

Let's be bigoted against bigotry! Hate those haters!

I guess accusing others of bigotry is your way of achieving peace and understanding.

[westprog]

Originally Posted by tsig

I guess accusing others of bigotry is your way of achieving peace and understanding.

That was what is technically known as a "joke". No, the best way to achieve peace and understanding is to tell people that their sacred book is a piece of ****. Actually, thanks to the autocensor, that word could be anything at all, so I shouldn't be too critical.

[Jonnyclueless]

Originally Posted by Robin

You said they ought to have their feelings hurt until they grow up. That is a judgement that their feelings are wrong and ought to be altered. Why is it your right to decide that their feelings are wrong and ought to be altered?

No, it's an opinion.

We could both use your logic though. You saying that I decided their feelings are wrong is a judgment that you think I think their feelings should be corrected. Why is it your right to decide that?

I simply think it's the logical result if they choose to have a belief system that requires them to be offended at something that is none of their business. They CHOOSE to be hurt. No one is actually hurting them, they are simply DECIDING to be hurt and then trying to blame someone other than themselves. No judgment is being made on my part at all.

Quote:

The assumption is that if somebody doesn't do anything bad to you then you don't do anything bad to them, unless your absolutely can't help it or there is some even more pressing reason for doing something that would hurt them.

No. The assumption on your part is that you can decide that someone else's actions that have absolutely nothing to do with you can be claimed to be hurting you and then you can accuse them of damage. That's bogus and nonsense.

You don't have the right to tell me that my burning a book is doing something bad to you. My burning a book would be none of your business and you need to demonstrate actual damages. Otherwise I can just claim that you posting on this forum hurts my feelings and therefore you are posting here to hurt my feelings. That too would be a bogus argument.

Quote:

In some countries they get upset if you hold your hand up towards them, knuckles outward with the middle finger extended upwards.

And the same holds true there. IF someone makes the decision that they want to get offended by such a gesture, then it's their problem. They could also just as easily choose to not be offended or hurt by something as petty as a configuration of fingers which does not harm them in any way.

Quote:

Some people might even punch you if you do it.

And those people would go to jail for ACTUALLY harming a person.

Quote:

I think we can both agree that it is silly and irrational to become upset by the configuration of somebody's fingers.

Absolutely. And even more silly to claim one has a right to accuse the person holding the fingers of hurting them. And even more silly for that person to then justify actually hurting another being.

Quote:

So ought we to do this to everybody as often as possible until they grow up?

No, that makes no sense and has nothing to do with what I said. To grow up we need to stop deciding to be offended at things that are of absolutely no harm to us.

Quote:

Or should we accept that if it offends them and they have not done anything to deserve being offended that we should just decide not to do it?

WRONG. I cannot accept such an immature and senseless notion. What we should accept is that if we DECIDE to be offended by something, then we DESERVE to be offended when someone does it. If we DECIDE not to be offended by something that is none of our business, then we won't be offended by it.

We should accept that we have no right to accuse people of hurting us when they do nothing to hurt us.

Quote:

Is it really such a curtailment of free expression if I decide not to flip the bird at an innocent bystander?

No, it is a curtailment when you try to stop someone from expressing themselves by trying to make false claims of damages. It's a childish behavior. A grown up would understand that a gesture or a book burning in no way harms them or threatens them. A grown up understands that they have a brain and can make decisions on such things.

If you decide that something so petty such as a configuration of fingers hurts your feelings, then I personally feel you deserve to have your feelings hurt. At least until you (proverbial you) decide to grow up.