Originally posted by Dr McBeefingtonI don't care about the consequences of his action, they're outside his control. He made a statement, as he is allowed by law to do in his country, and some radical freaks in another country decided to riot and kill over it. Two words for those freaks:
I disagree or rather I think you're confusing his actions with the symbolism that comes with a lack of consequences following the pastor's actions. Yes, we are all happy that in this country, we can do stupid shit like this and get away with it. But sometimes people use our laws and take it too far. Law and Order's Jack McCoy said it best. "The first amendment is used to persuade, not incite.
F*ck. Them.
I tend to agree. We didn't see Christians murdering people over Piss Christ, now, did we?
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://blog.sfmoma.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/serrano-andres-piss-christ-1987.jpg&imgrefurl=http://blog.sfmoma.org/2011/03/do-these-images-really-threaten-the-very-fabric-of-our-society-corrupt-our-children-and-poison-the-well-of-moral-goodness-we-all-live-by/&usg=__52dIliByHmoUn2lcHSsuESxhK9o=&h=590&w=419&sz=74&hl=en&start=0&zoom=1&tbnid=-SxEL59tVRx2cM:&tbnh=175&tbnw=128&ei=gueXTbz3N9OH0QGNgMH5Cw&prev=/images%3Fq%3DPiss%2Bchrist%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26sa%3DN%26biw%3D1345%26bih%3D669%26tbs%3Disch:1&um=1&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=842&vpy=77&dur=4585&hovh=266&hovw=189&tx=127&ty=162&oei=gueXTbz3N9OH0QGNgMH5Cw&page=1&ndsp=24&ved=1t:429,r:5,s:0
The statement was made, because it was the artist's free speech allowing it to be made.
Originally posted by ZampanóYou don't understand my concept of blame? Can you at least summarize what is so difficult to understand? I'm pretty sure you and I agree on this matter.
I think our problem is that half of us are talking about legal blame and the other half is talking about moral blame.The halves aren't even the same people as time goes on!
On the matter of Koran burning we agree.
I was talking about this post by tj:
I was incited to do it, therefore it is the inciter's fault, and not mine for being incited" Then I can basically do whatever I please.
When I talk about blame, I mean the degree to which one's actions has caused a situation. Thus, for example, I can say that Israel is at least partially to blame for the tensions with Hamas even though I feel that Hamas is morally in the wrong. (Specifically, in that situation Hamas is the barrier to progress because they exist only to wipe Israel off the map (which is unacceptable), but Israel's actions (such as the barrier on consumer goods and construction materials) allow Hamas to stay in power.)
It seems to me that tj was talking about who would be held accountable legally for a situation. I may be remembering incorrectly, but this seemed like the linguistic gap we struggled with as well. When you talked about moral accountability (e.g. to a deity) there was only room for a single perpetrator, one person who would accept punishment for the situation in question.
The difference is that when I say that two parties are at fault or to blame, I am not saying that they are equally culpable. As far as I have understood, tj (and possibly you as well) prefer to use "blame" as referring only to the party most at fault. I would be happy to discuss the merits of the different usages, but for now I'm going to eat pancakes. My apologies if I have mistakenly grouped your and tj's speech patterns; your name is only included on the basis of year-old memories of an embarrassingly poorly handled conversation.
It mostly depends on the way they're made though.
RN, the real question is, were the pancakes you ate any good? If no, did you make them yourself, if yes, did you make them yourself? If no, were they produced by a company in advance, if yes, were they produced by a company in advance? I usually prefer custom made pancakes, but some companies do a real good job making them. It's also easier when they're already prepped, because you don't have to make them yourself. They may taste not as good as custom made ones though. It's a choice people should make. The question you have to ask yourself is, do I sarcrifice time for quality, or do I care less about quality and more about sparing time. If you're often busy, but you really would like a pancake AND you also want quality, you can ask someone else in your immediate vicinity to prepare them for you. This way, you have quality AND you save time. Although there's a problem that may occur, there is a chance that no one is either 1) in your immediate vicinity, or 2) they lack the proper motivation to prepare pancakes for you. In case -2- you may think about motivating that person through allowing them to eat a pancake themself or you can offer other benefits in return for the preparation, like money or emotional gifts. All in all, these questions are very personal because everyone has different priorities.
Originally posted by Zampanó
Actually I had an entire paragraph written elaborating on the complicated system of labor exchange in my household. The internet only posted the first few words. : /
I have that all the time. I write the most intelligent mind-blowing posts, but it always cuts out the best parts.
My theory on this is that
EDIT: Damn you internetz!
