|
Post by mimicry on Sept 13, 2010 1:50:10 GMT
re. koran burning: i think there are more respectful ways to express issues one may have with certain aspects of a major religion. less bigoted ways, more responsible and thoughtful ways. it may be a symbol of free speech, but that doesn't make it "good" This! I think a good rule of thumb is if the Nazis did it, one probably shouldn't do it now.
|
|
|
Post by helwin tins on Sept 13, 2010 1:50:37 GMT
they shouldn't have done it. but they shouldn't have done it because it would have made them dicks. anyway, the specific guy might not have done it, but he certainly gave the idea to a whole lot of fuckwits who did. also, the badness of burning a book depends on the context. in a public sphere to preach hate: you're a douche. to oppress and censor: equally douchey. you've run out of rizla, you don't care, no-one else cares, no-one gets hurt as a result: wahay spliff.
|
|
|
Post by Lemon Bloody Cola on Sept 13, 2010 1:55:31 GMT
re. koran burning: i think there are more respectful ways to express issues one may have with certain aspects of a major religion. less bigoted ways, more responsible and thoughtful ways. it may be a symbol of free speech, but that doesn't make it "good" This! I think a good rule of thumb is if the Nazis did it, one probably shouldn't do it now. The Nazis' were enviromentalists!
|
|
|
Post by mimicry on Sept 13, 2010 1:59:46 GMT
they shouldn't have done it. but they shouldn't have done it because it would have made them dicks. anyway, the specific guy might not have done it, but he certainly gave the idea to a whole lot of fuckwits who did. also, the badness of burning a book depends on the context. in a public sphere to preach hate: you're a douche. to oppress and censor: equally douchey. you've run out of rizla, you don't care, no-one else cares, no-one gets hurt as a result: wahay spliff. I've known too many Catholic schoolboys and religious studies majors who have probably smoked the boring parts of their Bibles... And oh, Josh, I think the Nazi's carbon footprint was too large for them to be good environmentalists.
|
|
|
Post by Lemon Bloody Cola on Sept 13, 2010 2:11:07 GMT
A carbon jackboot footprint?
|
|
|
Post by lastgoodbye on Sept 13, 2010 7:15:19 GMT
Also some wolfboarders would no doubt support the mass burning of any other book with as much homophobia, misogyny and intolerance as the Koran (or the Bible...). Im not so sure about this, because we're all bright enough to realise that even though both holy books have offensive (and contradictory) messages in them, they're still precious to millions of people who don't subscribe to everything in them. For the record, I don't support the burning of any book, no matter the content. And with your "freedom" point... like, I know you support the freedom of speech and expression, I think everyone here does so there isn't much need for re-iteration. For someone to knowingly do something which will cause death and widespread hate and anger, they have the freedom to do it, but they're still an utter prick. When people keep turning round and saying "Ah, well he has the right to do it," in my mind it undermines the seriousness of the situation and how WRONG the man is. Is there no more helpful way to evaluate the situation that "Oh, he has the right, it's within his right"? If we let people scare us out of supporting those rights via threats of violence well.. slippery slope. I HATE HATE HATE this point, because it's not threat of violence agaist HIM which he is risking. People who exercise their rights even when it's at a great personal risk are on the whole brave and admirable, like people who go out to vote in a country where it's dangerous to. This man is risking other people's lives just to broadcast his badly-thought-out views and for his 15 minutes of fame. And finally, on the subject of criminalizing hate speech: Josh, I know you disagree with it because the question of where to draw the line. But the point of prohibiting hateful acts and speech is to do it at the point when your human right (to say, burn, protest what you want) encroaches on other people's human rights. So no, I see absolutely no justification for the majority of hate crimes on the basis of free speech. This particular scenario is difficult to judge, because it has already removed some people's right to life, which is horrific, but it can be argued that it was an indirect cause. Certainly when the blame is directly atrributable to the "free speaker", I think their hate crime should be prohibited.
|
|
|
Post by Lemon Bloody Cola on Sept 13, 2010 15:33:13 GMT
Aye Florence, you're right, probably wasn't much point in chipping in with my very predictable contribution to the discussion. It just seems that consensuses and certain collective values have become so tightly wounded on wolfboard that discussions like this have just become like minded people agreeing with each other for three pages. So it's almost an instinctive drive to play devil's advocate in order to break that homogeneity cos for whatever reason I'm uncomfortable with group-mentality.
This is why I've said in another thread I'm going to limit my contributions to the forum, especially opinion based ones.
Signing off.
|
|