Burn a Koran day

[Story]

It can be really easy to mistake the two days; DMD vs Burn a Quran day, as being similar in nature, because in both days we stand upon our right to offend people. I live in the Middle East and I was Muslim during DMD so I understand the perspective from both ends.

To us (non-Muslims), drawing something is innocuous and means little more than speaking about it. Freedom of expression protects your right to express your thoughts in whatever way you want (except violent expressions or inciting violence etc), but somehow drawing Muhammed should be avoided, because it offends Muslims. It's okay if anyone avoids doing it to avoid offending them, but outright restrictions are unreasonable especially when the creators of Southpark are threatened with death because of their light-hearted positive portrayal of him in a bear suit. To protest this act of censorship you (not me, I was Muslim at the time) demonstrated to the Muslim world that censorship in this regard would not be tolerated. You did this by exploiting your rights to freedom of expression regardless of how offensive that may have been.

"Burn a Qur'an Day" on the other hand has no logic attached. As I demonstrated before, the Quran does not exhort Muslims to suicide violence. The perpetrators of 9/11 were not inspired by the Quran. This "Burn a Qur'an day" only seems to be flying under the same flag as DMD, freedom of expression; that we are legally permitted to offend people, but without all the underlying rationale. The purpose is simply to offend, thus making it a unjustified attempt at spreading hate and bigotry for no good reason.

Of course they should be allowed this freedom, especially if it's a personal thing, but again. It is simple bigotry to encourage others to do this.

 

[borrofburi]

I would argue that it is censorship, just not government censorship.

And I would argue that you're wrong. The same way that if a post that breaks forum rules here is deleted, no one has been censored... the right to free speech doesn't extend so far as to force other people to provide you a forum to present your viewpoint. The person who owns or is responsible for a "private" forum can decide what is and is not acceptable in their own place.

In the case of YouTube, people have the privilege of posting and not much in the way of rights... privately owned website and all that. You certainly don't have a right to post comments on anyone's videos if they choose not to allow it. You're allowed to go ahead and post whatever response you like on your channel, or this site, or any one of a billion other places. False DMCA claims are an attempt a censorship, because it is using the power of the government to silence people.

I would make the distinction between being censored and "right to freedom of speech". Certainly a youtube user does (and, I think, should) legally have the right to censor me, but it is still censorship. Certainly it's fine for a "platform" owner to decide that she does not want to allow someone to use that platform, and so on that level private censorship can be fine; it still leaves a bad taste in my mouth when it's censorship of competing viewpoints in some sort of a platform (such as a forum (even if it's privately owned)) is done for no other reason than that you don't like them or what they think.

But I posit that there is a very fundamental difference between government and private "censorship", especially pre-censorship by, say, the government.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

...and now we're arguing semantics. No thanks.

 

[DeathofSpeech]

I would argue that it is censorship, just not government censorship.

When you enter a website you are a guest. When you enter a user page or channel on that site, you are then a guest of both the host, and the channel account holder.

A guest relationship is not heavily weighted toward the rights of the guest.
If for example you a a guest in a hotel, the host can expect and may require a minimum standard of conduct. Kicking holes in the walls and screaming at 3AM is an imposition upon the host not a right.

What Nephi does may be cowardly but it is not censorship. He has a Privledge superior to yours to live in his little fucked up geocentric universe on his channel account and you have your Privledge to have your universe... but if the host decides that either or both of you is an imposition they may ask you to leave and may expel you.

Not a rights issue. It might be an asshat issue. Your freedom of speech may lose a venue for its expression but your right to set up your own website isn't violated.
You have no actual speech rights when someone else is paying for the venue. That is not what free speech is about.
It is not your right to shove your way into someone's home uninvited to sell them spam, and even if you are invited, your invitation is a revocable privilege.

 

[DepricatedZero]

(through this post, I'll be using the word "you" - this is applied to anyone who feels that it is applied to them, but no one specifically. This is for those of you who think burning books is cool)

I'm gonna have to join in with Joe here.

The act is protected, and I'll defend your right to do it.

However, it's still despicable and I'll argue to dissuade you from being an ignorant bigot. If my arguments fail and you truly wish to show your ignorance and bigotry by burning a Qur'an, then by all means do so. I won't protect you from the repercussions when Muslim fundamentalists come to firebomb your home or church as you did their sacred Qur'an. And I certainly won't laud you for protecting your freedom of speech.

This isn't about freedom of speech at all. Freedom of speech was never under attack here, the fact that it came up and got tossed around is a complete red herring and grasping for justification. I'll condemn what you say even while I uphold your right to say it. You are a poor excuse for a human being, you're morally reprehensible, and being free to hate doesn't make hate right. This isn't a response to Muslims attempting to squelch free speech, it's purely a demonstration of hatred, and for that you are a slug in the sun.

 

[Aught3]

I won't protect you from the repercussions when Muslim fundamentalists come to firebomb your home or church as you did their sacred Qur'an.

But you would expect the police to step in to prevent the act and/or arrest those involved, right? Burning a Koran is not the same thing as firebombing a building.

 

[Anachronous Rex]

I won't protect you from the repercussions when Muslim fundamentalists come to firebomb your home or church as you did their sacred Qur'an.

But you would expect the police to step in to prevent the act and/or arrest those involved, right? Burning a Koran is not the same thing as firebombing a building.

Agreed. Defend to the death their rights and whatnot; despicable or no.

 

[DepricatedZero]

I won't protect you from the repercussions when Muslim fundamentalists come to firebomb your home or church as you did their sacred Qur'an.

But you would expect the police to step in to prevent the act and/or arrest those involved, right? Burning a Koran is not the same thing as firebombing a building.

I would expect them to perform to the peak of their capacity their job.

And in Islam, it is as serious a crime as firebombing a building. Perspective is a wonderful thing they simply lack - which means that it's not out of the question that such a recourse might truly be contemplated.

Think of it like if you were in a bar and walked up to some big ass guy and started insulting him. Should we protect you when he starts beating your ass?

 

[Aught3]

Think of it like if you were in a bar and walked up to some big ass guy and started insulting him. Should we protect you when he starts beating your ass?

Yes. Or at least he should be arrested later for assault.

And in Islam, it is as serious a crime as firebombing a building.

But clearly the actual law involved would be US law where there is no rule against burning a book but there are laws surrounding destruction of others property.

 

[Deleted member 619]

Burning books, including books filled with really cretinous ideas, can only ever be a bad thing. It equates to the destruction of thought, and sets a dangerous precedent. The motivations are irrelevant.

 

[DepricatedZero]

Think of it like if you were in a bar and walked up to some big ass guy and started insulting him. Should we protect you when he starts beating your ass?

Yes. Or at least he should be arrested later for assault.

And in Islam, it is as serious a crime as firebombing a building.

But clearly the actual law involved would be US law where there is no rule against burning a book but there are laws surrounding destruction of others property.

Right, not arguing that for sure.

The guy should be arrested, but while I'll defend your right to insult him I won't protect you when he smashes your face in because you abused that right. Will just arrest him after.(Not you, again just the generic "you")

And ya, all I mean is that, to a Muslim, that would be a "reasonable" response. I would expect the police to intervene of course, and the law would forbid such recourse.

But just because it's allowable still doesn't make it right, if you see what I mean - and I'll condemn anyone who preaches such acts.

 

[Aught3]

Right, not arguing that for sure.

The guy should be arrested, but while I'll defend your right to insult him I won't protect you when he smashes your face in because you abused that right. Will just arrest him after.(Not you, again just the generic "you")

And ya, all I mean is that, to a Muslim, that would be a "reasonable" response. I would expect the police to intervene of course, and the law would forbid such recourse.

But just because it's allowable still doesn't make it right, if you see what I mean - and I'll condemn anyone who preaches such acts.

Okay, I was wondering for a bit there

 

[TheSkepticalHeretic]

Draw Mohammad day was a protest, burning a book is censorship. If you're for free speech, you'd never engage in an act of censorship.

Burning a book isn't automatically censorship... does no one know what the word means?!?!

If you're for free speech, most of you seem to need to work harder to understand what it actually entails. And, no... Nephilimfree deleting your comments on his YouTube page doesn't count as censorship either. :facepalm:

Burning books is an act of ideological censorship. You are destroying knowledge, never to be seen again. Burning a single Koran might be forgivable, but considering this man's motivations I'm sure he'd go ahead and burn every copy on the planet if he had his way.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Burning books is an act of ideological censorship. You are destroying knowledge, never to be seen again. Burning a single Koran might be forgivable, but considering this man's motivations I'm sure he'd go ahead and burn every copy on the planet if he had his way.

That's just silly talk, based on your anger at the motivation. The minute some hillbilly preacher in Gainesville, FL can capture every copy of the Koran, you come back here and let me know. Until then he's a impotent jackass who can't destroy the information in the Koran by burning a few dozen copies any more than he can force everyone to be Christian by printing a few dozen copies of the Bible.

I'd really like to see you back up the "destroying knowledge, never to be seen again" bit. This should be a hoot.

Don't tell me... the Koran is like vampires, and if you can somehow destroy the main one you destroy all of them? So if this preacher douche can find the right Koran to burn, all the rest of them worldwide also spontaneously combust? Beat that one!! :lol:

 

[TheSkepticalHeretic]

Burning books is an act of ideological censorship. You are destroying knowledge, never to be seen again. Burning a single Koran might be forgivable, but considering this man's motivations I'm sure he'd go ahead and burn every copy on the planet if he had his way.

I'd really like to see you back up the "destroying knowledge, never to be seen again" bit. This should be a hoot.

The Great Library of Alexandria for one.

This is one of the earliest known incidents of directed book burning, unsurprisingly wrought by the hand of Christians.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

The Great Library of Alexandria for one.

This is one of the earliest known incidents of directed book burning, unsurprisingly wrought by the hand of Christians.

That has NOTHING to do with this topic, and your example doesn't at all relate to what's going on here.

Show me how burning a Koran THAT YOU BUY FROM A STORE is destroying knowledge, since that was what I was asking about.

 

[TheSkepticalHeretic]

The Great Library of Alexandria for one.

This is one of the earliest known incidents of directed book burning, unsurprisingly wrought by the hand of Christians.

That has NOTHING to do with this topic, and your example doesn't at all relate to what's going on here.

Show me how burning a Koran THAT YOU BUY FROM A STORE is destroying knowledge, since that was what I was asking about.

You wanted an example of how book burning removed knowledge forever, I supplied it. The breadth of circulation is not relevant as each Koran is unique, either in its construction, use, margin notes, publication errors, etc.

It is abundantly clear that you are allowing your notions of free speech to cloud your judgement on this topic. Free speech would be speaking about the Koran, stating its internal lack of consistancy and making others aware of the failings and lack of morality within its pages.

Burning a book only lends creedence to the mysticism of the knowledge within it. To burn the Koran is to make a statement of hatred and fear of the internal statements. If you don't understand this, then we're never going to come to an agreement on what book burning is and has always represented. Think of it this way, willful ignorance. To burn a book is akin to filing a false DMCA. Removing something from the public view, regardless of how available copies of that object are, is a form of censorship. Destroying that object is a form of eternal censorship.

I can mirror a false flaged Coughlin666 vid, that doesn't forgive the act of false flagging, and I'm sure you'd agree that false flagging IS a form of censorship.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

You wanted an example of how book burning removed knowledge forever, I supplied it. The breadth of circulation is not relevant as each Koran is unique, either in its construction, use, margin notes, publication errors, etc.

It is abundantly clear that you are allowing your notions of free speech to cloud your judgement on this topic. Free speech would be speaking about the Koran, stating its internal lack of consistancy and making others aware of the failings and lack of morality within its pages.

Burning a book only lends creedence to the mysticism of the knowledge within it. To burn the Koran is to make a statement of hatred and fear of the internal statements. If you don't understand this, then we're never going to come to an agreement on what book burning is and has always represented. Think of it this way, willful ignorance. To burn a book is akin to filing a false DMCA. Removing something from the public view, regardless of how available copies of that object are, is a form of censorship. Destroying that object is a form of eternal censorship.

I can mirror a false flaged Coughlin666 vid, that doesn't forgive the act of false flagging, and I'm sure you'd agree that false flagging IS a form of censorship.

I don't agree with you even to a tiny degree, and here's why: if you purchase a copy of a book, you own it and have the right to do whatever you want to it. You have done absolutely nothing that takes away anyone else's right to read the book, and you've done nothing to destroy any information. Yeah, these asshats are absolutely making a "statement of hatred and fear of the internal statements"... and they are well within their rights to do so, and haven't committed any sort of censorship whatsoever. Destroying a copy of a book doesn't destroy the idea. It seems that you're engaging in some weird form of mystical idolatry, where a book is like a voodoo doll, and hurting the copy somehow does harm to the original.

It just isn't so.

My "notions" about free speech leave my judgment crystal clear, and allows me to keep things in proper perspective. Your "notion" is that speech should only be free when it suits you and doesn't offend your sensibilities. Burning books is an ugly thing, and I find it offensive as well. That doesn't make it censorship, and the use of that word in this context seems to me to be nothing more than an attempt to elevate your personal sense of offense to some loftier crime against freedom.

I'm reminded of this:

 

[Nautyskin]

It's Blasphemous NOT To Burn The Koran

So you just wish to exercise your right to burn something, even if it's not a reasonable act?

I wish to exercise my right to burn everything. I worship Flamus, the god of fire, and he has spoken to me, commanding that anything that isn't on fire ... should be, and if it isn't, shall be deemed an abomination.

Therefore, I find your words blasphemous. On top of this, I consider your, and everything you own's, lack of flames appalling, outrageous and insulting to everything I hold sacred.

It's blasphemous NOT to burn the Koran.

Flamus smoke be praised. Sacred be thy name.

 

[lrkun]

Re: It's Blasphemous NOT To Burn The Koran

So you just wish to exercise your right to burn something, even if it's not a reasonable act?

I wish to exercise my right to burn everything. I worship Flamus, the god of fire, and he has spoken to me, commanding that anything that isn't on fire ... should be, and if it isn't, shall be deemed an abomination.

Therefore, I find your words blasphemous. On top of this, I consider your, and everything you own's, lack of flames appalling, outrageous and insulting to everything I hold sacred.

It's blasphemous NOT to burn the Koran.

Flamus smoke be praised. Sacred be thy name.

:facepalm:

Try reading what you wrote and ask yourself, why lrkun gave you a facepalm.