7 U.N Workers Killed by Afghans in response to Koran Burning.

OccultHawk · 04-04-2011, 01:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alfred

What are you saying? Are you saying that the reason we go to war with Muslim nations/fight muslim extremist groups is because of Christianity?

Yes. And that's why they fight us.

Alfred · 04-04-2011, 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OccultHawk

Yes. And that's why they fight us.

It may be why they fight us, but it's definitely not why we fight them.

crukster · 04-04-2011, 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tuna

Pretty embarrassing that people in this thread actually condoned what the Afghans did. It's like suddenly we need to feel sympathy for the 'misunderstood' Afghans after Sept. 11 because people got PC and were afraid of stereotyping Afghans as one in the same (which I agree with, but I'm not about to accept what these extremists did as justice).

If Christians had killed after Bible burning, something tells me this would be a lot more controversial.

If you're referring to me, you need to go read my posts again.

I said I understand it, I didn't say I condone it. There is a big big difference between understanding something and condoning it.

I actually said 3 times clearly I don't condone it, it's funny you go and use the same word again derp

OccultHawk · 04-04-2011, 01:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alfred

It may be why they fight us, but it's definitely not why we fight them.

Are we the good guys?

Alfred · 04-04-2011, 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OccultHawk

Are we the good guys?

Whether or not we're the "good guys" is irrelevant. All I'm saying is that Christianity and violence for the sake of violence do not go hand in hand, and your military argument is pretty baseless.

**Janszoon** · 04-04-2011, 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crukster

Yeah but I wasn't disputing any of those beliefs, they didn't even come into the conversation. I wasn't debating a particular theory you might have on Quantum Mechanics, what we were debating was Religion and religious belief, if you don't have a Religion or any religious belief, then how is it possible for me to offend you when talking about Religion?

I don't even know where to begin with this. First off, we weren't just talking about religion we were talking about atheism as well. Secondly, why are you jumping to quantum mechanics? I'm not talking about scientific theories, I'm talking about ethical belief systems such as humanism. And lastly, how is it even remotely logical to think that just because someone isn't religious that they couldn't be offended by religious talk? You do understand that religion doesn't exist in a vacuum, right? It affects everyone, even the people who aren't believers.

Quote:

Originally Posted by crukster

That's the most important lesson here.

Because this is what the motivation of the Qu'ran burners is based on. What they propose to do, is to destroy something they don't want to use.

They want to make sure no-one else uses it. The scale hardly matters when the intent is the same.

They want to do it in a little amount, it's just nothing, just burning a book eh?

When has burning a book ever been just burning a book?

The act is rooted in a deeper misunderstanding and hatred. In order to resolve it, you have to understand the implications.

"If you think it's alright to just burn what I pledged my undying soul to, if you deject that I have one, and you burn that too, then I'm going to burn yourself into ash."

THAT is what is going through the mind of your average extremist. And by extremist I mean the people who have abandoned everything but religion - people living in dire straits.

It might not be accurate. Maybe they've misunderstood. maybe those people burning their Holy Book in front of their eyes, well maybe they don't want to destroy the last saving grace of these people's existence. No. Maybe, out back where no-one can see, they've got the New Book. They figured out something really wrong with what they were doing now. So they burnt it in front of them, they watched it all go, and the scales were reset. And then they'd bring out the new books, they'd give us the new words of knowledge and understanding and righteousness, and then we'd understand why they had to burn the old ones.

Or maybe, hey, it is accurate. And some people just need to see other's soul's burn.
If he's free to say how great burning it is, I'd be free to stand in on his podium and tell him why's he wrong. To engage, to interact, to battle it out.

That is what some of these extremists want. The want to tell you why you're wrong, but because Western free speech = "protection of speaker", and his cut off from interaction, responsibility and arguments, it also means that those arguments brew up, and turn into hatred.

Anger leads to Hatred, Hatred leads to the Dark Side etc.

What I am proposing is that Free Speech should mean, free speech of all. It should mean answering for what you decide to say. It should mean being willing to back it up, and to allows others to have their say, and to discuss things intelligently. And then to take appropriate action.

If you deny the first stages, people jump right to the last, which will generally always be a flawed action, not the appropriate one; acts of desperation.

Dude, who are are you even debating with here? I'm not in favor of book burning and I already said I think the guy's an ass for doing what he did. He still has a right do it though in a society that values free speech, just as you have right to do something equally obnoxious.

midnight rain · 04-04-2011, 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crukster

If you're referring to me, you need to go read my posts again.

I said I understand it, I didn't say I condone it. There is a big big difference between understanding something and condoning it.

I actually said 3 times clearly I don't condone it, it's funny you go and use the same word again derp

With statements you made like this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by crukster

Why is it their right to burn it, but it's not a Muslim's right to defend it?

It's understandable that I'd be confused about your position on it, because in that statement you certainly didn't seem to have a problem with what the Afghans did.

I didn't read your entire argument with Janszoon, so if you clarified then good for you. I said "people" anyways, not crukster.

And who says derp anyways? South Park is funny, you're not.

crukster · 04-04-2011, 02:21 PM

Quote:

I don't even know where to begin with this. First off, we weren't just talking about religion we were talking about atheism as well. Secondly, why are you jumping to quantum mechanics? I'm not talking about scientific theories, I'm talking about ethical belief systems such as humanism. And lastly, how is it even remotely logical to think that just because someone isn't religious that they couldn't be offended by religious talk? You do understand that religion doesn't exist in a vacuum, right? It affects everyone, even the people who aren't believers.

1. Atheism is not a thing. Atheism is an unthing.

We were debating the thing vs the unthing, I didn't make any sort of argument against Humanism. That's crazy.

I was saying atheism is irrelevant in the end. Either there's a God or there isn't, if there isn't how can you be "a-" to it?

If you say theism and being theist refers to more than just God, and refers to ideas and structures of Humanic morals and goals et.

Then wtf does that have to do with being atheist?

Atheist means "I'm not a theist"

Doesn't mean anything else beyond that. Ergo, if you define yourself purely and utterly as atheist, then you live your whole life saying

"im not a theist im not a theist im not a theist"

Well I'm not a ****ing turtle, I don't live my whole life saying "I'm not a turtle" sheesh

Quote:

Dude, who are are you even debating with here? I'm not in favor of book burning and I already said I think the guy's an ass for doing what he did. He still has a right do it though in a society that values free speech, just as you have right to do something equally obnoxious.

You accused me of condoning the murders. You said when I come in here saying they have a right to defend, that that sounds like I'm saying they have a right to kill.

I didn't say they have a right to kill, that whole paragraph there is why they want to kill. I'm saying there are more productive ways of showing the flaws in the book burning.

They didn't need to kill anyone. There are situations where you do. Namely, when it's your kids they decide to burn. But in this situation it was not neccessary, because the Qu'ran is only a physical copy of the words; they could burn every copy, are they gonna burn the brains of people who memorise it as well?

By burning the books, that's essentially what they're showing they want in the long run, imo. WHEN they do that, I condone the killing, hell if someone wanted to brain wash me, and used force, then I would kill them.

But as it is, every Muslim holds a copy of the Qu'ran that can't be burnt. They should take it down to where it's being burnt. Stand around. And recite.

That is freedom of speech. The day that happens is the day this is no longer an issue.

Quote:

It's understandable that I'd be confused about your position on it, because in that statement you certainly didn't seem to have a problem with what the Afghans did.

I didn't read your entire argument with Janszoon, so if you clarified then good for you. I said "people" anyways, not crukster.

Well you're an idiot then. That doesn't say kill that says defend it.

When they pick up a sword and swing it in your face, then you have a right to kill. But not as the instigator/aggressor. There weren't any swords being swung physically. The swords were words and actions, they should have answered them in turn.

You know what though man. If I saw someone burning Qu'rans, I would be angry. I would put out the fire, I would hurt anyone who tried to stop me. I would be ****in angry.

The best thing, the ideal model thing to do in the long run, like I said, is recite it in front of them.

But I ain't a ****ing model Human Being. I'm not patient enough to do that, how could I sit there and let it burn? I would be violent. But only towards anyone who tried to stop me stopping them. In the long run I'm not a scholar, i can't sit and watch,.

s_k · 04-04-2011, 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crukster

1. Atheism is not a thing. Atheism is an unthing.

That's like saying vegetarianism is an unthing

.
I don't think I agree. I think you confuse atheists with people who 'don't care about religion'. Someone who is not religious at all is not an atheist.

crukster · 04-04-2011, 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by s_k

That's like saying vegetarianism is an unthing

.
I don't think I agree. I think you confuse atheists with people who 'don't care about religion'. Someone who is not religious at all is not an atheist.

Not really, vegetarian -ism is the advocation of a vegetarian lifestyle above all others.

atheism is the advocation of a lack of theological thinking above all others.

How can I offend you, theologically, then? I don't get it.