Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
I've spent the last 12 years of my life signing away my rights in public schools. I'm not apart of the group of people who think that a person should be able to do whatever he wants because it's within his or her rights.Good question, I don't know. I think that's a different animal then what's going on here, though. Watching porn is a (usually) private activity that isn't broadcasted. Burning holy books is actively spitting on the face of a major religion, with the intention to cause harm.
Perhaps a better comparison; I would advocate the shutting down of a new program on comedy central called "lol Muslims are dumb".
I 'spose we should introduce a new government agency called "where the line is drawn"...you can be in charge.
Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
I've spent the last 12 years of my life signing away my rights in public schools. I'm not apart of the group of people who think that a person should be able to do whatever he wants because it's within his or her rights.Good question, I don't know. I think that's a different animal then what's going on here, though. Watching porn is a (usually) private activity that isn't broadcasted. Burning holy books is actively spitting on the face of a major religion, with the intention to cause harm.
Perhaps a better comparison; I would advocate the shutting down of a new program on comedy central called "lol Muslims are dumb".
I don't follow that logic. 'It's within your rights to do so, but you can't', I'm sure you could find the odd example, but I disagree in general.
Fair enough comparison, but I disagree in the greater scheme of things. Much is mocked and made fun of all the time on TV, even religions, it seems to me (and South Park made an excellent point showing this) Islam is the "egg shell" exception.
IMO, **** them, they're not special.
Originally posted by SamZED
Examples?
Army of God -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_of_God_(USA)
The 2001 Anthrax attacks
The stat sym mentioned generally refers to anti-abortion terrorism, which is far more prominant in America than is muslim terror. Muslims have the biggest one, and the highest body count, but a "profile" of the most common terrorist in America is a white-male-christian.
This makes sense due to population demographics alone
Originally posted by inimalist
Army of God -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_of_God_(USA)The 2001 Anthrax attacks
The stat sym mentioned generally refers to anti-abortion terrorism, which is far more prominant in America than is muslim terror. Muslims have the biggest one, and the highest body count, but a "profile" of the most common terrorist in America is a white-male-christian.
This makes sense due to population demographics alone
Kind of unfair to only include attacks in America that were towards America/Americans.
The bombings of US bases, embassies or Americans on foreign lands for the purpose of terrorism are no different than 9/11, with the exception of the death/damage count, imo.
This will bring the radical and some none radical muslims out of the woodwork, and set them up nicely for target practice.
Originally posted by FistOfThe North
not all muslims are terrorists but so far most all terrorist have been muslim.
The Irish had a lot more success with terrorist attacks methinks, supported by American NORAID money I might add, lets not forget that
Originally posted by Robtard
Kind of unfair to only include attacks in America that were towards America/Americans.The bombings of US bases, embassies or Americans on foreign lands for the purpose of terrorism are no different than 9/11, with the exception of the death/damage count, imo.
It was specified "in the US"
expanded to include all terrorist attacks (as opposed to acts of war) against America/American bases, I still think the pattern would hold.
Originally posted by inimalist
It was specified "in the US"expanded to include all terrorist attacks (as opposed to acts of war) against America/American bases, I still think the pattern would hold.
I know, just see that as a silly restriction, considering it's far easier for Tim McVeigh types to terror-attack in America than say Al Qaida.
Maybe. Unless 'we' arbitrarily state that any attack by a brown or Muslim is a terrorist attack.
Originally posted by Robtard
I don't follow that logic. 'It's within your rights to do so, but you can't', I'm sure you could find the odd example, but I disagree in general.Fair enough comparison, but I disagree in the greater scheme of things. Much is mocked and made fun of all the time on TV, even religions, it seems to me (and South Park made an excellent point showing this) Islam is the "egg shell" exception.
IMO, **** them, they're not special.
I don't understand what you mean. Are you saying that you aren't aware of many instances where people are prohibited from doing certain things that technically are within their right to do?
I agree that they're certainly more sensitive. But on the other hand, I think most religious groups would react violently to a TV show that didn't just express criticisms toward them, but outright hatred for them.
But, that aside, I'm not really intrested in discussing that, to be honest. I'm more intrested in ideas for what we should do period. What's obvious is that we are, essentially, at odds with Islam. What's less obvious, or rather what's obvious but no one wants to talk about it, is, how are we going to settle this? It's the general consensus that outright merc'ing islam mother****ers isn't the route to take. But, no one wants to stop people from outright bashing them either. So no one wants to get rid of them, and no one wants to appease them. What's the alternative, then?
Originally posted by Robtard
I know, just see that as a silly restriction, considering it's far easier for Tim McVeigh types to terror-attack in America than say Al Qaida.Maybe. Unless 'we' arbitrarily state that any attack by a brown or Muslim is a terrorist attack.
well, that brings up an interesting point.
Was columbine a terrorist attack? would we consider it one if a Muslim had perpetrated it (yes, re: Ft. Hood).
In America, these types of murders and attacks, perpetrated by whites, are normally left as local tradgedies that get little coverage. Columbine is interesting, because prior to that, all school shootings were, in the media, treated as local. They were actually falling in frequency.
I also don't think it is a silly restriction. Maybe to the well informed, it seems like a no brainer, but there are significant numbers of people out there who don't think of it like this. It is an important stat because it enforces that religion is not what makes people do crazy things, it is just that there are crazy people looking for an excuse.
Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
I don't understand what you mean. Are you saying that you aren't aware of many instances where people are prohibited from doing certain things that technically are within their right to do?I agree that they're certainly more sensitive. But on the other hand, I think most religious groups would react violently to a TV show that didn't just express criticisms toward them, but outright hatred for them.
No, I'm agreeing there are, eg you stated you signed off certain rights in order to go to school; that's you signing off to get something in return though. In the general sense of things, I don't agree with that; I especially don't agree with it in this case, this is a private citizen burning his property, it's within his rights (no matter how moronic it is) and the government shouldn't impose because some Islamopheg made threats.
"Sensitive", I think it's a bit more than that, see Salman Rusdie for example. Can you show some examples of other religions reacting in a similar fashion?
Edit: I once saw (online) a painting of Jesus in a sexual 3-way with a lion and a lumberjack (not XXX), do you really think some Pastor or Bishop would call for the head of the artist?
Originally posted by Robtard
"Sensitive", I think it's a bit more than that, see Salman Rusdie for example. Can you show some examples of other religions reacting in a similar fashion?
at the level of having a grand ayatolla decree that the artist must die, no.
However, Andres Serrano recieved a lot of violent criticism for Piss Christ (a work not even intended to be inflamatory) and galleries that have shown work by Mapplethorpe have been threatened (such as, the curator getting death threats at their home)
Originally posted by inimalist
at the level of having a grand ayatolla decree that the artist must die, no.However, Andres Serrano recieved a lot of violent criticism for Piss Christ (a work not even intended to be inflamatory) and galleries that have shown work by Mapplethorpe have been threatened (such as, the curator getting death threats at their home)
Which was my point, Islamic heads respond FAR more drastically.
Unaware of the "Piss Christ". Am aware of Mapplethorpe, was it some whacked-out individual(s), or was it religious heads making decrees in the name of *insert religion*?
Originally posted by Robtard
Which was my point, Islamic heads respond FAR more drastically.Unaware of the "Piss Christ". Am aware of Mapplethorpe, was it some whacked-out individual(s), or was it religious heads making decrees in the name of *insert religion*?
I'd say the wacked out option
But like you point out, its more that the wackos are in charge of islam, than anything to do with islam itself
Originally posted by inimalist
I'd say the wacked out optionBut like you point out, its more that the wackos are in charge of islam, than anything to do with islam itself
I don't blame Islam(okay, maybe a little), even if the Qur'an states "infidels must be killed", it's still ultimately the fault of the idiots who follow it/do it.
Originally posted by Robtard
[B]No, I'm agreeing there are, eg you stated you signed off certain rights in order to go to school; that's you signing off to get something in return though. In the general sense of things, I don't agree with that; I especially don't agree with it in this case, this is a private citizen burning his property, it's within his rights (no matter how moronic it is) and the government shouldn't impose because some Islamopheg made threats.
Well, if you don't want to appease the radical muslims, then what do you think would be the right thing to do, so far as preventing them from killing us?
"Sensitive", I think it's a bit more than that, see Salman Rusdie for example. Can you show some examples of other religions reacting in a similar fashion?
No, I can't.
Edit: I once saw (online) a painting of Jesus in a sexual 3-way with a lion and a lumberjack (not XXX), do you really think some Pastor or Bishop would call for the head of the artist?
It's happened many times before in history. Maybe not nowadays, no.
Originally posted by Robtard
I don't blame Islam(okay, maybe a little), even if the Qur'an states "infidels must be killed", it's still ultimately the fault of the idiots who follow it/do it.
I agree. But the blame doesn't lie totally with them - they're sucked into an ideology.
And you should know better than many Westerners that Qu'ran does not have the same standing in Muslim world as does Bible in Christian world. Qu'ran is undisputed and direct word of God (word for word), not a bunch of people jotting things down such as Pete, Steve, Mark and Paul.
This is what makes it mega, super sacred.
With that in mind, this whole book burning is seriously not a good idea.
It just goes to prove that those who think burning this book is somehow a good idea, are not yet familiar with Islamic doctrine and religion.
This is why I think this will offend a lot more Muslims than would Bible burning, Christians.