Burn a Koran day

[ImprobableJoe]

Re: It's Blasphemous NOT To Burn The Koran

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

I just keep asking myself why you refer to yourself in the third person. :facepalm:

 

[lrkun]

Re: It's Blasphemous NOT To Burn The Koran

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

I just keep asking myself why you refer to yourself in the third person. :facepalm:

:facepalm:

So what's the answer you've come up with?

 

[borrofburi]

Re: It's Blasphemous NOT To Burn The Koran

I just keep asking myself why you refer to yourself in the third person. :facepalm:

:facepalm:

So what's the answer?

:facepalm: Obviously the answer is more facepalms :facepalm:

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Re: It's Blasphemous NOT To Burn The Koran

:facepalm:

So what's the answer you've come up with?

You've had a psychotic break, or you're a professional wrestler in real life, one or the other. :lol:

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Re: It's Blasphemous NOT To Burn The Koran

:facepalm: Obviously the answer is more facepalms :facepalm:

...and more cowbell!

 

[lrkun]

Re: It's Blasphemous NOT To Burn The Koran

:facepalm:

So what's the answer you've come up with?

You've had a psychotic break, or you're a professional wrestler in real life, one or the other. :lol:

You're very imaginative.

What is a psychotic break? Is this something you're currently experiencing?

No, I am not a professional wrestler.

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.

The reason why I wrote it in third person was for the above quoted guy/girl to contemplate on this *interesting reply.

 

[Andiferous]

I'm disagreeing again, and mostly because the confusion is too much for me, and I think the third person speak indicates the loopy of the conversation.

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.

Book burning is a form of censorship, you just can't get away from it. It's why copies of The Origin of Species and The Golden Compass are thrown in giant bonfires of protest. It might not be censoring very effectively (unless they are subject to library bans as well) but the intention is a sort of symbolic censorship. It's a passive-aggressive form of censorship that is often used in protest.

But regardless, I think the censorship stuff is less important than the original issue.

I'd say that most people who burn books aren't supporters of the First Amendment or free speech in general. They are all for THEIR speech to be protected, but wouldn't extend that right to people who disagree with them. I'd be surprised in this instance if the Koran-burning church would support my right to burn a Bible.

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.

For one to worship on the throne of Free Speech, one should rightly respect that all speech is free (even as you say when it doesn't "offend your sensibilities"). It is one of those lofty philosophical principles that doesn't hold up well under exceptions. Burning books may not be silencing anyone directly or effectively, but it is protesting the very principle behind free speech, and exposing book burners as hypocrites.

I don't want to argue semantics either, that's why I'm going with the all or nothing approach on free speech.

But is speech free, or is it not, and is censorship good, or is it not, and is symbolic censorship o-kay?

 

[Nautyskin]

Re: It's Blasphemous NOT To Burn The Koran

The reason why I wrote it in third person was for the above quoted guy/girl to contemplate on this *interesting reply.

Nautyskin doesn't put any consideration into facepalms. He/She thinks they're a dime a dozen and serve only to communicate an inability to .. communicate.

Perhaps Irkun can illustrate why one person's delusion should be treated with less/more respect than anothers?

 

[ImprobableJoe]

I'm disagreeing again, and mostly because the confusion is too much for me, and I think the third person speak indicates the loopy of the conversation.

Well... we ARE the League of Treason, so I guess by arguing we're all betraying each other in the spirit of our new title? :lol:

Book burning is a form of censorship, you just can't get away from it. It's why copies of The Origin of Species and The Golden Compass are thrown in giant bonfires of protest. It might not be censoring very effectively (unless they are subject to library bans as well) but the intention is a sort of symbolic censorship. It's a passive-aggressive form of censorship that is often used in protest.

But regardless, I think the censorship stuff is less important than the original issue.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that point, because I don't consider book burning in this case to be censorship any more than if I printed your posts and set fire to them. Think about that for a minute... if I print out your last post, and set fire to that piece of paper, have I done ANYTHING to either eliminate the information in your post, or interfere with your freedom to make that and future posts? If I have done neither of those things, you have not been in any way censored.

For one to worship on the throne of Free Speech, one should rightly respect that all speech is free (even as you say when it doesn't "offend your sensibilities"). It is one of those lofty philosophical principles that doesn't hold up well under exceptions. Burning books may not be silencing anyone directly or effectively, but it is protesting the very principle behind free speech, and exposing book burners as hypocrites.

I don't want to argue semantics either, that's why I'm going with the all or nothing approach on free speech.

But is speech free, or is it not, and is censorship good, or is it not, and is symbolic censorship o-kay?

Protesting free speech is also free speech, ironically enough. That's the sort of "all or nothing" approach that I'm taking. Burning your own copy of any book is your right, both as free speech and under the concept that you have a right to dispose of your own property as you please under most circumstances.

Let's take a look at P.Z. Myers and his Great Jesus Cracker Desecration. Here's the picture:

Look, there's a Jesus cracker, some pages from the Koran, and some pages from The God Delusion. Do you think Richard Dawkins feels like he was censored by P.Z. Myers? Or are some destructions of books acceptable, and it is wrong when other people do it? As Myers says, it is just paper. We shouldn't worship things. Hell, I'll set fire to any book I own just to prove the point... stuff is just stuff, things are just things, and we should not invest them with any power over us. If the idea survives, then the loss of a copy of the information doesn't matter.

And yeah, real actual censorship is wrong. What you describe as "symbolic censorship" is actually a form of speech, and I'm all for free speech even if I find it distasteful.

 

[lrkun]

Re: It's Blasphemous NOT To Burn The Koran

The reason why I wrote it in third person was for the above quoted guy/girl to contemplate on this *interesting reply.

Nautyskin doesn't put any consideration into facepalms. He/She thinks they're a dime a dozen and serve only to communicate an inability to .. communicate.

Perhaps Irkun can illustrate why one person's delusion should be treated with less/more respect than anothers?

I don't wish to illustrate an exercise of futility. Nevertheless, if you think you're deluded at the moment, then please get yourself checked up by a doc. ^^

 

[pdka2004]

Book burning is not censorship, but it does demonstrate a very strong desire for it.

Those who participate are showing that they are willing to go to extreme lengths to deny others access to information simply because it does not fit in with their own, narrow, world view.

All speech and ideology should be free. But don't ever make the mistake of thinking that just because you are allowed to hold a particular view without fear of reprisal, that I am obliged to listen

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Book burning is not censorship, but it does demonstrate a very strong desire for it.

Those who participate are showing that they are willing to go to extreme lengths to deny others access to information simply because it does not fit in with their own, narrow, world view.

Yeah, and I have a very strong desire to drive a McLaren and date Megan Fox. Desire doesn't equal reality. Unfortunately. :evil:

Something you mention is a very good point. This church and its members are showing their desire to destroy Islam. That's a good thing, because we want these sort of people out in the open where we can mock them.

 

[pdka2004]

Yeah, and I have a very strong desire to drive a McLaren and date Megan Fox. Desire doesn't equal reality. Unfortunately. :evil:

Something you mention is a very good point. This church and its members are showing their desire to destroy Islam. That's a good thing, because we want these sort of people out in the open where we can mock them.

I have driven a McLaren (over rated) and Ms Fox, I am afraid to say, does nothing for me (its the tattoos)

The problem is that this church seems to think that they are doing a good thing, defending truth, justice and the American way. And no one has yet told them that they arent

 

[ImprobableJoe]

I have driven a McLaren (over rated) and Ms Fox, I am afraid to say, does nothing for me (its the tattoos)

The problem is that this church seems to think that they are doing a good thing, defending truth, justice and the American way. And no one has yet told them that they arent

I'm sure plenty of people have, but they just don't care.

There are plenty of problems with that church, but none of them have anything to do with censorship.

 

[pdka2004]

There are plenty of problems with that church, ......

That people go?

I think that deep down the biggest problem I have with this whole story is that with all the other attention worthy news items going on around the world at the same time, this one made national headlines

 

[TheSkepticalHeretic]

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.

Incorrect. The act is the issue, not the object upon which the act is being performed.

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.

Ah I get it now, you're intentionally being a jackass and dancing around the point. If you condone an act once, you must condone it in its entirety and at each instance.

Burning the Koran doesn't appear to be an issue to you because it is widely available. What if the circulation of the Koran was only a few hundred copies, would you hold the same stance? If you wrote a book about your beliefs and minted 50 copies. I procured them all and burnt them, would that be acceptable? How many copies must remain after I'm done to have my act be one of free speech as opposed to ideological vandalism?

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Ah I get it now, you're intentionally being a jackass and dancing around the point. If you condone an act once, you must condone it in its entirety and at each instance.

So now you're flaming because you have nothing to counter my position with. I've got your number chum... it is "zero".

 

[pdka2004]

Offensive as we might find it, we cannot ban book burnings. It is a private individual's personal expression of his disagreement with it's content

As long as they have legally purchased and own the books being burned, and it is taking place on private property, not only do they have the right to do this - I would actually find myself in the position of defending this right, even if I disagreed with them on every level and would rather have a handful of angry wasps stuffed in my underpants than mingle with them socially

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Offensive as we might find it, we cannot ban book burnings. It is a private individual's personal expression of his disagreement with it's content

As long as they have legally purchased and own the books being burned, and it is taking place on private property, not only do they have the right to do this - I would actually find myself in the position of defending this right, even if I disagreed with them on every level and would rather have a handful of angry wasps stuffed in my underpants than mingle with them socially

Hell yeah!

 

[Nemesiah]

I won't burn my Koran, I want to read it and see what all the fuss is about; books shouldn't be burnt, they should be read, discused and given to the next generation so they too can make up their minds.

Also insulting muslims doesn't seem to bring the best in them so instead of insulting them why not debate them?