|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
 Posted - 09/10/2010 : 06:32:16 [Permalink]
|
kil said:
| We really would like him to shut the fuck up and go away. |
No, we'd like him to actually change his mind and realize his error, then print a nice big public apology for being a hate filled fucktard for all those years.
| Not a strawman. Chastising the media for being stupid and irresponsible is the same as wanting the media to have not focused on the story. And so it can be assumed, based on what we wished they had not done that further reporting of this story or a story of this kind is also stupid and irresponsible. In other words, we would have preferred it that they had shut the fuck up. |
Yes, a strawman. And no again. We want the media to practice responsible journalism, not tabloidism, and we definitely don't want them to shut the fuck up! Obama could have told them to be journalists and lay off the tabloid bullshit. That is a far cry from wanting them silenced.
Honestly, if you really desire the silencing of other people and the media, I don't know what else to say to you besides that you are demanding something that is completely contrary to an essential value of this country.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
 |
|
|
Robb
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
Posted - 09/10/2010 : 07:34:18 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
Originally posted by Robb
Originally posted by Dude
I am unwilling to sacrifice my freedom of speech to protect the feelings of anyone. Nor should any of us. There is no such thing as a right to not be offended. If any person, state, or loosely associated group of bronze age religious fundamentalists disagree... then they are diametrically opposed to the most important value we have, and we should not give a rats ass how they will react. If they react with violence, then we defend ourselves in kind.
|
I don't understand why you think free speach is being limited? No one is stopping him from doing it. People are putting pressure on him to not do it but the government is not stopping him. Just as the mosque at ground zero, opponents were not forcing them to build it elsewhere, they were trying to pressure them to move it. Everyone is aware of the peoples right to free speech and religion.
|
Because once you surrender a right you never get it back without using force. People calling for him to silence himself should realize their error. If he self censors this time, it will be expected of him the next time he has something unpopular to say or do.
Same for the not-ground-zero mosque. The people calling for it to be moved are just a bunch of stupid assholes (fuck them). No one will say how far it should be moved, or suggest a "better" location. Just don't build it there, it's insensitive! (or, as faux"news" suggested, it will be a terrorist headquarters....) If that group bows to public pressure to move, then it will be expected of muslims everywhere in the US when they are told they should not build here or there.
What is being said is, essentially, we "respect" your right to speech, but we really don't want you to speak. (sarcasm quotes)
The only response to that is a giant "fuck you!" to the people telling you to shut up. Everyone has a right to speak, and even the right to tell people to shut up, but it runs counter to the intent and spirit of free speech if you tell a person you don't agree with to stop speaking. It's only a crime if you are the government telling people to shut up, true, but so what?
|
I see your point and agree with it to a certain extent. But isn't it my right to speech to tell this pastor to stop burning the koran? |
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. - George Washington |
|
|
|
Robb
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
Posted - 09/10/2010 : 07:35:19 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
Yeah, Obama's response is idiotic.
What he should have said is that this person has an incredible following of almost 100 people, he is irrelevant and probably delusional, is exhibiting attention seeking behavior, and then he should have chastised the fucking ratings whore media for continuing to put the lunatic on air or talk about him.
|
AGREED! |
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. - George Washington |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 09/10/2010 : 07:48:00 [Permalink]
|
Dude:
Honestly, if you really desire the silencing of other people and the media, I don't know what else to say to you besides that you are demanding something that is completely contrary to an essential value of this country. |
The above quote is the real strawman in this debate. The one I have been trying to point out to you. What I desire and what I believe is the right thing to do are not necessarily the same things. You falsely make the assumption that it is. I am fully aware of the strength and importance of the first amendment. And I would defend the right of all of those who I wish would shut the fuck up to say whatever they want to say because if I try to limit their freedoms, I open the door to limiting mine. I have not once in our dialog called for silencing any of them. That's your take on what I have been saying and that's the strawman you have built.
What I or you desire is secondary to upholding the first amendment, which, by the way, does protect my right to tell anyone I want to to shut the fuck up, as you have already admited. While you are busy wrapping yourself up in the American flag and speaking about intent, and picking choosing what is okay and not okay to say, (or even think!) I'm arguing that it's all okay to say. And while you're busy saying crap like "No, we'd like him to actually change his mind and realize his error," which is all well and good, it says nothing about what we would prefer that he do while he is spewing his filth. Hell, even the unrealistic goal of actually changing his mind distills down to we would like him to stop saying (or believing) what he is saying (or believing). Since when do we need you as the thought police? I believe you are being hypocritical. And that's exactly what I was trying to point out when I first responded to what I saw as you being hypocritical.
What a pompous ass you are to think that you can lecture me about the intent of the first amendment. Really. Get out of town...
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 09/10/2010 : 09:50:55 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Dude:
Honestly, if you really desire the silencing of other people and the media, I don't know what else to say to you besides that you are demanding something that is completely contrary to an essential value of this country. |
The above quote is the real strawman in this debate. The one I have been trying to point out to you. What I desire and what I believe is the right thing to do are not necessarily the same things. You falsely make the assumption that it is. I am fully aware of the strength and importance of the first amendment. And I would defend the right of all of those who I wish would shut the fuck up to say whatever they want to say because if I try to limit their freedoms, I open the door to limiting mine. I have not once in our dialog called for silencing any of them. That's your take on what I have been saying and that's the strawman you have built.
What I or you desire is secondary to upholding the first amendment, which, by the way, does protect my right to tell anyone I want to to shut the fuck up, as you have already admited. While you are busy wrapping yourself up in the American flag and speaking about intent, and picking choosing what is okay and not okay to say, (or even think!) I'm arguing that it's all okay to say. And while you're busy saying crap like "No, we'd like him to actually change his mind and realize his error," which is all well and good, it says nothing about what we would prefer that he do while he is spewing his filth. Hell, even the unrealistic goal of actually changing his mind distills down to we would like him to stop saying (or believing) what he is saying (or believing). Since when do we need you as the thought police? I believe you are being hypocritical. And that's exactly what I was trying to point out when I first responded to what I saw as you being hypocritical.
What a pompous ass you are to think that you can lecture me about the intent of the first amendment. Really. Get out of town...
|
That assumption you are accusing me of making is all in your head. What I'm saying to you is that its a fucking hypocritical thing to wish a person silent on an issue while at the same time defending your right to tell them to shut up. I'm not saying you aren't allowed to do that, just that it is a dick thing to do.
Then you say you want the to shut the fuck up, but you aren't actually calling on them to shut up, in the same paragraph...... I don't even know how to respond to that.
Then when I say that I would like phelps to share a greater respect for things like the rule of reciprocity and adopt a greater tolerance for other human beings he may not agree with.... you accuse me of trying to be the thought police? Who's the fucking pompous ass here? I don't want phelps to shut up, ever. In fact, I want him out there as often and as visibly as he possibly can be. He does more damage to his "cause" than anyone outside it could, just by opening his mouth to speak.
And you have it wrong again when you equate the desire to change phelps's (agreed it will probably never happen) mind with the the desire to see him stop speaking. The entire fucking point of free speech is that we are allowed to dissent and object to the ideas of other people. To attempt to change their minds! By you reasoning here I should call you the fucking thought police for advocating skepticism. Seriously, who Fucking needs you telling them that skepticism should be a valued skill and the best method for evaluating claims? You arrogant sonofabitch!  It's codified in law so we retain that right when it comes to the government, but the principle behind it is broader.
Get out of town? Say it and say you mean it. I'll get the fuck off your lawn.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 09/10/2010 : 09:57:49 [Permalink]
|
Robb, yes, it is your right to say just about anything. Including telling people to shut up. My point, that I can't seem to explain to kil, is that it is hypocritical and runs contrary to the concept when you do. Civil liberties are more than just some things we have made into laws. They are also principles and values we should try to live by if we agree that we were right in making them into laws. Telling people to shut up doesn't exactly line up with saying everyone has the right to speak.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 09/10/2010 : 10:21:56 [Permalink]
|
| You know what Dude. I give up. Let the people who read this thread come to their own conclusion. I just can't keep going around and around with this. We have both stated our case. And that's that... You got the last word, and I really don't mind. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 09/10/2010 : 14:11:46 [Permalink]
|
Dude.....
You state.....| And this is the reason why not all speech is protected. Clearly you can't allow people to sell snake oil as a cancer cure, incite others to violence, or yell "fire!" in a crowded room...... |
alsoI don't understand how anyone can think pressuring an opponent to silence is a good thing.
|
How does shouting "fire!" in a crowded room with few exits differ from the highly publicized act of setting fire to a pile of religious bullshit that millions of Muslims consider sacred; considering that some of these otherwise mildly deluded people are violent nutcases of the calibre of those that crash airplanes into buildings and blow themselves up in crowds? It is an incitement to violence!
The very real additional danger to our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, to say nothing of facilitating recruitment into jihadist groups and encouraging more terrorist activity from Islamic crazies, would seem to me to be sufficient reason to silence this insane Christian minister in Florida - both by speech and also action, if necessary. If he lights the fire, he should be arrested and the fire put out by the Fire Department. And he should be loudly condemned for even speaking about such an intention - on the basis that his speech and action are threatening lives!
Yelling "fire" in a crowded theater should be condemned, punished, and prevented if possible. Idiotic acts of protest like this book-burning can lead to catastrophic events - they should be condemned and prevented by force, if necessary, for exactly the same reasons!
Dude, if you reply, please try real hard to keep it civil. Your last few paragraphs to Kil had a good deal of personal insult that really is not warranted by the subject matter here. I know how much you enjoy this kind of thing, but what's the point?
It drops the level of discourse to that of an adolescent street fight. How does angrily personally insulting a debate opponent advance your point of view? It does not seem useful, or even sensible to me.
I have been goaded by you and others into this type of secondary-schoolyard discourse several times, and I regret my responses and publically apologize for them. I am really attempting to not be drawn into name-calling and insult to other members here - simply to try and raise the level of civility and maturity here.
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 09/10/2010 : 16:09:43 [Permalink]
|
bng said:
| How does shouting "fire!" in a crowded room with few exits differ from the highly publicized act of setting fire to a pile of religious bullshit that millions of Muslims consider sacred; considering that some of these otherwise mildly deluded people are violent nutcases of the calibre of those that crash airplanes into buildings and blow themselves up in crowds? |
If I tell you I hold the works of Robert Heinlein sacred, and if you attempt to burn them I will blow your house into pieces, does that mean you should be stopped with force from burning my sacred book if you wanted to protest me?
Seriously, if you don't understand the difference between yelling "fire" in a crowded room and burning a book in protest, I can't help you understand it.
| The very real additional danger to our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, to say nothing of facilitating recruitment into jihadist groups and encouraging more terrorist activity from Islamic crazies, would seem to me to be sufficient reason to silence this insane Christian minister in Florida - both by speech and also action, if necessary. |
Yeah, then we can ban the publishing of any image of mohamed, no more cartoons for you mohamed buddy! Then we can forcibly ban people from saying negative things about islam. Then we can jump on the anti-blasphemy bandwagon, pass a few laws to criminalize being mean to religions and religious people!
Or, more sensibly, you can not allow "violent nutcases" to dictate your behavior. Unless, of course, you really do think you should be forcibly prevented from burning my copy of Stranger in a Strange Land to prevent me from demolishing your house with a firebomb.
| Dude, if you reply, please try real hard to keep it civil. Your last few paragraphs to Kil had a good deal of personal insult |
...... meh, whatever. I'm not personally insulting Kil. Most of it was sarcastic redirect of his rather insulting position and strawmen.
I can't tell if you have taken the position you have in this thread out of legitimately holding that opinion or if you are just trying to throw fuel onto the fire. The problem with your position is childishly easy to see, and I doubt your actual thinking runs along those lines. Seems odd that an old liberal like yourself isn't going to come down hard on the side of free speech. Strange even.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 09/10/2010 : 16:57:55 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
How does shouting "fire!" in a crowded room with few exits differ from the highly publicized act of setting fire to a pile of religious bullshit that millions of Muslims consider sacred; considering that some of these otherwise mildly deluded people are violent nutcases of the calibre of those that crash airplanes into buildings and blow themselves up in crowds? It is an incitement to violence! |
I suppose it depends on how (and where) we definde the baseline for rational and irrational thought.
Talking about violence seems ok. Even talking about making violence against someone is fairly ok. But actually performing acts of violence against other people is wrong.
Most people seem to agree that we have an obligation to check own responses to provocations. As long as you're not actively encouraging violence upon someone, being offensive seems ok enough.
Still, I guess it depends on the baseline. That some religions (I guess most of them) are intolerant against criticism, so it seems from their point of view that they would like to shift the baseline away from any criticism toward a position that any speech that is critical of religion is also offensive.
From my point of view, Muslims have been successful is this anti-democratic strive in many Islamic-dominated countries.
| The very real additional danger to our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, to say nothing of facilitating recruitment into jihadist groups and encouraging more terrorist activity from Islamic crazies, would seem to me to be sufficient reason to silence this insane Christian minister in Florida - both by speech and also action, if necessary. |
A wet-job by a CIA-organised black-ops team would certainly eliminate a reason for fanatic/radical Muslims to react against Western Civilization. Possibly reducing the threat against American soldiers abroad. If that is a good thing, I'll let others decide.
My personal feeling is that all religionists need to grow thicker skins. Just because they believe in the opposite of rationality and science, but in God-all-mighty, doesn't exempt them from criticism when being wrong or foolish.
| If he lights the fire, he should be arrested and the fire put out by the Fire Department. And he should be loudly condemned for even speaking about such an intention - on the basis that his speech and action are threatening lives! |
He should torch whatever the fuck he wants, but if he is violating some local ordinance forbidding outdoor burning of printed paper, he should be stopped/fined for that, not because the actual print was the Koran, or even Origin of Species for that matter (or junk mail from the local hardware store). If he is loudly condemned for the fire that was put up, it should (for the purpose of the fire being put out) be that he violated local ordinance, nor that he expressed an unpopular view on a religion or another.
| Yelling "fire" in a crowded theater should be condemned, punished, and prevented if possible. Idiotic acts of protest like this book-burning can lead to catastrophic events - they should be condemned and prevented by force, if necessary, for exactly the same reasons! |
I don't agree with you. Such sentiments would have prevented the now famous Danish Muhammed cartoons, which was originally (and legitimately intended as) a criticism of Islam. The context of cartoons being that there is too much self-censorship because of a way-too-sensitiveness against criticism among members of the Muslim community.
A free society needs to able to express all kinds of ideas, and in such an environment, all ideas also need to able to accept criticism. Representatives of those ideas (Muslims, Christians or Atheists) need to be able to listen to such criticism, without starting to throwing around death-threats (and trying to act upon them). Atheism seems to able to play by those rules. Christianity mostly seems mature enough to play by those rules. Why shouldn't Muslims?
I perfectly understand that Muslims in dark-age, third world countries like Syria, Iran, or Indonesia cannot grasp such concepts like free expression of ideas and that any idea, including religious ones, are open to free criticisms.
But they do know and understand the principle of diplomacy, and the point and purpose of embassies. So if they do attack foreign embassies like the Swedish one in Damascus because of the Danish Muhammed-cartoons (were they really depictions of The Prophet or just some unnamed Arab?) then I feel that the embassies should be defended with force. Muslims' attacks on the embassies are acts of war, and must be repelled. If not for anything else, than for maintaining the respect of other countries' sovereignty.
I'm totally on Dude's side of this (but I feel that he and Kil are misunderstanding each other and talking past each other since I see their stance as partially overlapping)
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 09/10/2010 : 17:04:18 [Permalink]
|
| Ya know. I'm not really very impressed by Ron Lindsay's tenure as head of the CFI so far. Just saying... |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 09/10/2010 : 19:08:43 [Permalink]
|
Dude.....
| If I tell you I hold the works of Robert Heinlein sacred, and if you attempt to burn them I will blow your house into pieces, does that mean you should be stopped with force from burning my sacred book if you wanted to protest me? |
Yes. If it is just you and the bomb, me and my house, and a cop; the cop sure as hell better stop me if he can't stop you.
Are you telling me that if you were confronted on your front porch by an obviously deranged Muslim equipped with a explosive vest, demanding that you not ignite your pile of Quurans or he would push the button, you would not comply with his demands? Your ideals of "freedom of expression" would be more important than your life? Nonsense!
| Or, more sensibly, you can not allow "violent nutcases" to dictate your behavior. |
If a "violent nutcase" with a big gun stops you on the street and demands your wallet, you will give it to him and keep your mouth shut. He certainly will be dictating your behavior. You not only can allow it, you damn well better or you are likely to become dead. Seriously, if you don't understand the difference between yelling "fire" in a crowded room and burning a book in protest, I can't help you understand it.
|
I really don't need any help. Yelling "fire" in a crowded room is a meaningless act of irresponsibility, can lead to a panic injuring people, and should be both prevented if possible and punished when done.
Performing an act that can incite excessive violence in a group of crazies is a meaningless act of irresponsibility, may cause them to injure and kill people, and should be prevented if possible, and punished if done.
I see no difference at all| Yeah, then we can ban the publishing of any image of mohamed, no more cartoons for you mohamed buddy! Then we can forcibly ban people from saying negative things about islam. Then we can jump on the anti-blasphemy bandwagon, pass a few laws to criminalize being mean to religions and religious people! |
Slopes only get slippery when it snows, and your comment is a simplistic snow job. As far as cartoonists drawing offensive cartoons of Mohammaad, as long as the world media don't pay much attention, so what? When it is picked up and spread all over the Internet, the world's TV and press media; yeah I think it is a pretty bad idea. When many others, besides the cartoonist's, lives are threatened; it should be stopped.
Banning negative comments about Islam is way below the danger bar here in the US. Soldiers stationed in Arab countries should be prevented from making negative comments about Muslims.
The rest of your rant is just silly. I am talking about flash points that threaten life and serious injury to innocents or to our forces trying to do their job (as you know, I don't agree with the idea of them even being in a location where this kind of harm can ensue. Get our troops home where they belong, and I don't give a damn about Muslim provocation.) | ...... meh, whatever. I'm not personally insulting Kil. Most of it was sarcastic redirect of his rather insulting position and strawmen. |
Okay, but insult is a damn poor substitute for reasoned argument and for some reason, the amount of it that abounds in these forums is excessive, I believe.| I can't tell if you have taken the position you have in this thread out of legitimately holding that opinion or if you are just trying to throw fuel onto the fire. |
I have a very genuine concern about the "fire in a crowded room" aspect of free speech, particularly when dealing with utterly irrational and ignorant armed primitives. If "trying to throw fuel onto the fire" means expressing opinions contrary to yours, I am sorry to burn you.| The problem with your position is childishly easy to see, |
Then, as a child that sees it, please explain it to me. I see no "problem".| I doubt your actual thinking runs along those lines. Seems odd that an old liberal like yourself isn't going to come down hard on the side of free speech. Strange even. |
My actual thinking is precisely as I expressed. I firmly agree with John Stuart Mill who wrote: | In "On Liberty" (1859) John Stuart Mill argued that "...there ought to exist the fullest liberty of professing and discussing, as a matter of ethical conviction, any doctrine, however immoral it may be considered."[32] Mill argues that the fullest liberty of expression is required to push arguments to their logical limits, rather than the limits of social embarrassment. However, Mill also introduced what is known as the harm principle, in placing the following limitation on free expression: "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. |
I feel that this should be part of the creed of any thinking Liberal. |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 09/10/2010 : 20:10:09 [Permalink]
|
Dr. Mabuse.....
A wet-job by a CIA-organised black-ops team would certainly eliminate a reason for fanatic/radical Muslims to react against Western Civilization. Possibly reducing the threat against American soldiers abroad. If that is a good thing, I'll let others decide.
|
Well, it might be a good thing, all things considered, but generally believing in the Rule of Law, I would say it sounds a little extreme.| My personal feeling is that all religionists need to grow thicker skins. Just because they believe in the opposite of rationality and science, but in God-all-mighty, doesn't exempt them from criticism when being wrong or foolish. |
I agree completely, but need to grow is unfortunately not the same as have. The fact is, these ignorant, ill-educated, simplistic folks have damn thin skins (like all too many in our country), and they (the Islamics) have a maniac fringe element that is indeed dangerous.| He should torch whatever the fuck he wants, |
Not if it is going to threaten peoples lives or arms and legs. He should be condemned for the same reason.
If I hate tigers, should I be allowed to poke a stick at one in a zoo as an expression of my negative feelings about tigers, until the enraged beast turns on his keeper and injures or kills him?| Representatives of those ideas (Muslims, Christians or Atheists) need to be able to listen to such criticism, without starting to throwing around death-threats (and trying to act upon them). |
Need to, yes. The point is, the fringe militants don't listen, and they actually do kill indiscriminately. They are genuine, insane, savages and cannot be seen as rational people.| So if they do attack foreign embassies like the Swedish one in Damascus because of the Danish Muhammed-cartoons (were they really depictions of The Prophet or just some unnamed Arab?) then I feel that the embassies should be defended with force. Muslims' attacks on the embassies are acts of war, and must be repelled |
My position is that it would be far better to prevent such actions than to be forced to use deadly force when violent reaction to a cartoon, for god's sake, inevitably takes place.| I'm totally on Dude's side of this |
The trouble is, Dude's side is essentially that freedom of speech and expression is a more important ideal than preventing possibly massive death and destruction. As in everything, context matters. Absolute freedom in one context can be absolute catastrophe in another.
Without the media publicity, the cartoon incident, or the Koran burning would be rather meaningless and the nutcase preacher could burn whatever the fuck he wanted to with all of the world's blessings. When news of his proposed act is instantly publicized world-wide in today's flash-powder world, the consequences of free speech and free expression have to be considered in a realistic life-and-death context. As have many other freedoms that we enjoy suffered restriction and control during conventional wartime. We had a pretty restricted society during the Second World War. But a good deal of it was necessary to win the war; and much of our pre-war freedoms were restored when the war ended.
I still have reservations about the ever-growing power of governmental censorship and secrecy that started back in the 40's and has vastly increased to and through today; but I agree that some of it may be necessary in a tremendously more complicated world than that which we had in pre WW II. I will continue to believe that freedom of speech and expression must be protected and revered; but when some instance of it clearly threatens to harm others, control should be exercised. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 09/10/2010 : 20:43:42 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
| If I tell you I hold the works of Robert Heinlein sacred, and if you attempt to burn them I will blow your house into pieces, does that mean you should be stopped with force from burning my sacred book if you wanted to protest me? |
Yes. If it is just you and the bomb, me and my house, and a cop; the cop sure as hell better stop me if he can't stop you. |
In that situation, the cop only has an obligation to stop Dude. There's nothing illegal about burning books. Not only does the cop have to stop Dude, he has to arrest Dude whether you burn the books or not, since the very act of making such a threat is illegal in most jurisdictions in the U.S. And again, there's nothing legally actionable about burning books (unless there's one of those "logs and twigs" laws in place, of course, but a cop still can't stop you from throwing books in your fireplace).| Or, more sensibly, you can not allow "violent nutcases" to dictate your behavior. |
If a "violent nutcase" with a big gun stops you on the street and demands your wallet, you will give it to him and keep your mouth shut. He certainly will be dictating your behavior. You not only can allow it, you damn well better or you are likely to become dead. |
How many Westerners have "become dead" due to disrespecting Islam in the most recent decade? I know of only one. The idea that even the most anti-West Muslims are as immanent a threat as a dark-alley mugger is ridiculous.
Although I suppose that if even a single death is too high a cost to pay for protecting the ideals behind our civil rights, then you think that Martin Luther King, Jr., should have kept his big yap shut, yes?I firmly agree with John Stuart Mill who wrote: | In "On Liberty" (1859) John Stuart Mill argued that "...there ought to exist the fullest liberty of professing and discussing, as a matter of ethical conviction, any doctrine, however immoral it may be considered."[32] Mill argues that the fullest liberty of expression is required to push arguments to their logical limits, rather than the limits of social embarrassment. However, Mill also introduced what is known as the harm principle, in placing the following limitation on free expression: "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. |
I feel that this should be part of the creed of any thinking Liberal. |
Another old dead guy quote:They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. And if you're going to argue that the threat is violently crazy people with guns and bombs, then you're saying that there's no telling what might set them off (they're crazy, after all). So any safety gained by prohibiting acts we happen to know enrage them is necessarily minimal and temporary, since the threat (violently crazy people with guns and bombs) will not go away just because we don't burn the book they like. They will remain violent and crazy and armed, so sacrificing our integrity and ideals does nothing to diminish the threat.
The fear that you are appealing to is exactly what the Bush administration used to stomp all over civil rights. It really is a shame to see a "thinking liberal" agree with those thugs. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Burning the Koran: how stupid is this?
