Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[RedKing]

By way of analogy, if you climb into a corral with a bull and wave a red flag and then get curb-stomped by said bull, should the focus of the attention be, "Wow, that bull is a real menace and should be put down," or is it going to be, "Wow...that was pretty fu*cking stupid. What did you THINK what happen?" One of the big arguments against burning the Koran in the first place, besides the fact that it's just idiotic, is that it was a provocation and almost certainly liable to lead to an incident just like this. Which is probably why Pastor Jones did it, so that he can say, "Look! See how vicious these people are??"

It's a dick move. It's like poking someone in class with your pencil over and over so that they turn around and hit you and then THEY get in trouble.

The problem, RedKing, is that the first reaction is ten times more prevalent in American society than the second. For some reason, the majority of the populace refuses to accept that their actions ever result in negative consequences.

Like I said, we don't take shit seriously in America, so we're surprised and appalled when others do. We also prize freedom of speech -- even offensive speech -- above almost all else, so we're inclined to see Pastor Jones' action as the lesser evil. Whereas in most of the Islamic world, piety is prized over individual freedoms, so Pastor Jones' action would be seen as the greater evil.

My main beef with the response is that the UN is an innocent bystander here. If Terry Jones actually had balls, and had chosen to fly to Afghanistan himself and burn the Qu'ran there, and got destroyed for it, I'd have no problem with that.

[dragonshardz]

But then that would entail risk to his person, which we all know is more important than some backwater Muslims.

The above is sarcasm.

[scriver]

Yup, totally dickish move from the pastor's side, but let's say that the other side doesn't deserve sympathy.
As far as I'm concerned, you can still burn any symbol you want, but you are not allowed to kill.

So as I say, stupid people do stupid things, innocents die and nothing new under the sun.

I agree with this, with the reservation that while I completely think it was within their legal right to burn whatever book they wanted, I will not abstain them from their part of what happened later. Actions have consequences.

[Earthquake Damage]

We also prize freedom of speech -- even offensive speech -- above almost all else

I'm pretty sure the whole point is to protect offensive/unpopular speech.  If nobody gives a damn, it doesn't need protection.

[Jackrabbit]

That would be because Americans have a disconnect from the rest of the world. In the 20th century, we've gotten so used to not taking shit seriously (really, this is a defining American trait IMHO) that we forget that there are still large swathes of the world that do take shit seriously.

Whilst I wouldn't go so far as to comment on a nation I've been to once (I was four), I will say that I agree that disregard for consequences is a serious problem and these people should be held just as accountable for the murders as the Afghans. That probably sounds rather extreme, and probably is, I just really, really don't like people who are stupid enough to do something like this.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Whilst I wouldn't go so far as to comment on a nation I've been to once (I was four), I will say that I agree that disregard for consequences is a serious problem and these people should be held just as accountable for the murders as the Afghans. That probably sounds rather extreme, and probably is, I just really, really don't like people who are stupid enough to do something like this.

Regardless of their stupidity, the First Amendment guarantees that their Quran burning and mock trial are protected as symbolic speech. The violent reaction of the murderers is on the heads of the criminals in question, and no one else. Burning a book is not sufficently justified provacation to commit murder, even if the murderers hold that book to be very sacred.

[scriver]

First of all, I want to say that I do not think there's any justification for murder, just to be clear. But I have to restate, being legally in the right - and I think it is beyond question that the Christians were - does not automatically absolve them for their part in the series of events. That is why they are, not equally mind you, but still partly responsible for what happened. Cause and consequence.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Being legally in the right does absolve them of responsabily. Guilt by association isn't justice. Anyone can take an legal action of one person and do somthing illegal because of it, but that doesn't make the first person responsable for the actions of the second.

[Glowcat]

This event wouldn't have even happened had nobody paid attention to some backwater pastor. The Middle-East is filled with the sort of rural mob that attacks anything "Westernish" in response to a real or perceived threat/offense from anything else "Westernish". Hence why random Middle-Eastern Christians can be attacked for what the USA does... or when the pastor initially announced his plans and a violent mob burned down a local school (probably with Korans in it, for great poetic irony).

Similar things happen all the time and the mobs don't respond because they don't KNOW about them and can't create one of their feeble excuses for wanton bloodshed and destruction. Those who sought to condemn the mock trial and bring it a ridiculous amount of attention are the most "guilty" among indirect participants, whereas the pastor's trial was nothing more than a common forgettable annoyance that would be lost in the sea of fundamentalist nonsense.

[scriver]

Being legally in the right does absolve them of responsabily. Guilt by association isn't justice. Anyone can take an legal action of one person and do somthing illegal because of it, but that doesn't make the first person responsable for the actions of the second.

If somebody does something because of you, you are a cause for what they did. If you show DF to someone and they like it, you are responsible for them hearing of it. Likewise, if you bully someone enough to make the bullee commit suicide, then you are a cause of his actions. The results being bad instead of good does not change the fact that they did what they did (even if it was just partly) because of you. It doesn't matter if you are not legally accountable - all actions have consequences. In this case, eight people got killed by an angry mob, enraged by a stupid book burning.

Another example, this one true (as far as I can remember, that is, it was some years ago): A mentally handicapped child was bullied for his childhood and adolescence. His family do what they are able to do; contact schools, socials and such, but they aren't able to stop the bullying. Anyway, at one night, some kids decide to drive up to his family's house to antagonize him even more. They stand in the yard swinging wooden sticks, shouting at and abusing the kid and the people in the house. The guy obviously doesn't handle this well, but his already mentally ill father snaps under the stress and from seeing his son so distressed - in his own home, no less. He grabs his hunting rifle, goes out into the yard and shoots two of the bullys, killing one and gravely injuring another (I do not remember if he ever recovered or had his body destroyed). Clearly, he is a murderer, and is legally responsible for what he did. But would you really say the bulleys have no responsibility for what happened? That the man shooting at them is completely disconnected from their actions?

[TherosPherae]

To phrase my view on the issue very, very simply:
If we all went around burning everything we thought was wrong, evil, or bad in general, the entire world would be on fire.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Likewise, if you bully someone enough to make the bullee commit suicide, then you are a cause of his actions.

That's not the same as book burning. You are harrassing a person directly as a bully.

In this case, eight people got killed by an angry mob, enraged by a stupid book burning.

Indeed.

Clearly, he is a murderer, and is legally responsible for what he did. But would you really say the bulleys have no responsibility for what happened? That the man shooting at them is completely disconnected from their actions?

There are mitigating factors here, however.
A. The father is mentally ill, and thus cannot be fully held responsable for his actions
B. The child is mentally ill, and thus cannot defend himself easily.
C. The bullies are going out of their way to harrass and asault someone. That isn't speech, that's criminal activity.
D. Book Burning->Killer Mob =/= Vicious assault on mentally handicapped child -> Mentally ill father shoots lunatics attacking his child; in therms of threat level and provacation.

All I'm saying is that the church, crazy as they are, shouldn't face prosecution for this. That's all.

[scriver]

All I am saying is that we can't ignore that it was their actions that lead to these UN guys getting murdered. They were the cause, and as such have responsibility for the consequences. Nobody is talking about either prosecution or persecution, just an acknowledgement of what their part in the chain of events that resulted in murder. Nobody is calling them murderers, they're just the reason those people got killed.

[Criptfeind]

Not going to go as far as saying it would definitely not have happened without them. But okay, sure. They had a part, a minor perhaps, maybe major, part.

[ed boy]

A mentally handicapped child was bullied for his childhood and adolescence, etc

You could say it is the bully's fault for bullying the child.
You could say that it is the father's fault for overreacting to the bullies.
You could say that it is the parent's fault for not leaving the area.
You could say that it is the bully's parent's fault for not raising the kids better.
You could say that it is the fault of the school and legal system for not preventing it.
You could say that it is the fault of the neighbours for standing by and letting their neighbour be harassed in such a way.
You could say that it is the fault of media the bullies were exposed to that encouraged them to bully others, and not to empathise.

With most situations, you can blame almost anyone, and humans like to blame other humans. Whenever something unfortunate happens to someone, they tend to find some way of shifting the blame onto some figure they already dislike. This can take many forms; for example, no matter who I ask, they say that the media is biased against their political views.

There is no point in saying that someone is to blame or not. Not only is blame a very slippery and malleable concept, but it can very easily lead to hating the person you deem responsible, which is never a good thing. Two wrongs do not make a right.