Conquer Club

patches70 wrote:I can put it to rest once and for all actually. We should follow your assertions to the logical conclusion, starting with the burning of the Koran is not protected Free Speech.

-The people decide that burning the Koran incites violence, so it is made a crime to do so.
-The Christians say "Burning the Bible is as offensive to us as burning the Koran is to Muslims. They get violent so you reward that by giving in to their demands. We want the burning of Bible's to be a criminal offense as well. It is only fair."
-Fine, fine, the people say, no more burning the Bible either.
-The secularist say, "Well, we don't care about the Bible or the Koran, but we care about the Flag. It is offensive to us that our Nation's flag is burned. It is only fair that our views be addressed as well."
-Fine, fine, the people say, no more burning the flag.
-The Obamaphile's say- " Well, we love our President, and protests against him are offensive to us. We want our views to be addressed. It is only fair."
-Fine, fine, the people say, no more speaking out against President Obama.
-The Bushphiles say- "We like Bush, he protected us but Obama demonized him but we can't retort. It is only fair that the same protections given Obama be given to Bush as well."
-Fine, fine, the people say, no more speaking out on any future, current or past President.
-The Congress say, "Wait, we get criticized over and over as well. Since one branch of Government is now protected from Free Speech, we deserve to be protected as well. It is only fair."
-Fine, fine, the people say. In the interest of harmony, no speech will be allowed in criticism of government.
-The gays say-

You get the point now?

Pretty soon it gets to the point where no one can say anything lest it disrupt harmony and cause dissension.

I say, let the dissension come. Let the debate be fierce and heated and brought to light. For only when we are honest to ourselves and are allowed to speak our mind can people truly have a chance to find common ground eventually. Though, often, to get there will almost always be a struggle. It is a struggle worth having IMO.

A slippery slope argument. If we do one thing then we eventually do everything. I understood your point long ago, I just don't consider it much of a point. Placing a limit on freedom of speech is not the same as advocating tyranny. It's just an argument I disagree with entirely. You've decided to take an example and reduce it to absurdity. It's a rhetorical tactic, but it doesn't really bear much weight in reality.

As you hopefully have realised, we already have limits on freedom of speech. Somehow those limits have not resulted in tyranny anymore than putting a murderer in jail is a slippery slope towards putting everyone in jail.

bedub1 wrote:

john9blue wrote:you are both different types of people.

patches does not presume to know what is good and bad. he lets other people decide for themselves.

rockets thinks he knows what is good and bad. he will tell/force others what to do.

it is that simple.

interesting idea.

I still can't make the leap of faith that some people make saying "he burned the book for it, and people died because of it."
I say NO. He burned a book, and people died because other people reacted in non-rational ways and murdered people. Just because they said they would react in that non-rational way, doesn't mean you should believe them or change your actions because of it. If you do that, then the terrorists have won.

It's not exactly a leap. If you were told by an expert, someone that you trust not to be lying, that flipping a switch would cause a death, but were left free to flip that switch, would you flip it and say "hey- who knew?" when it resulted in death.

Unfortunately, Pastor Jones' actions are already a significant victory for the terrorists. They love that he won't be punished. They love all the protection he's getting. It's a massive recruitment tool for them. I notice that the UN is considering pulling out a lot of staff working to rebuild Afghanistan because of this.

It's fun to suggest that this is a simple freedom of speech issue, but there are practicalities. Pastor Jones just showed a huge portion of the world's population that the US will not protect the book they consider to be most holy. It's a decent virtue to argue for, but it is also a huge blow to any kind of nation-building efforts, and it will result in more extremists.

So anyway, there's a point where extreme idealism on both sides has to confront pragmatism. Unfortunately, we're in a situation where ideology is valued more than reality.

Symmetry wrote:It's not exactly a leap. If you were told by an expert, someone that you trust not to be lying, that flipping a switch would cause a death, but were left free to flip that switch, would you flip it and say "hey- who knew?" when it resulted in death.

Except that switch doesn't rely on another human being making an independent choice. Flipping the switch is the choice you chose to make and the direct consequence was that someone died. This pastor chose to burn the Koran, but then other groups of people made their own choices to riot and murder people. The pastor's choice did not cause the other people to be violent; they chose to be violent of their own volition. There were perfectly capable of not acting violently, unlike the switch that led to the person's death. That's the difference between direct and indirect causation, which is why this pastor is not liable for the deaths that resulted.

Night Strike wrote:

Symmetry wrote:It's not exactly a leap. If you were told by an expert, someone that you trust not to be lying, that flipping a switch would cause a death, but were left free to flip that switch, would you flip it and say "hey- who knew?" when it resulted in death.

Except that switch doesn't rely on another human being making an independent choice. Flipping the switch is the choice you chose to make and the direct consequence was that someone died. This pastor chose to burn the Koran, but then other groups of people made their own choices to riot and murder people. The pastor's choice did not cause the other people to be violent; they chose to be violent of their own volition. There were perfectly capable of not acting violently, unlike the switch that led to the person's death. That's the difference between direct and indirect causation, which is why this pastor is not liable for the deaths that resulted.

He is not LIABLE, correct. But he absolutely bears A LARGE AMOUNT OF RESPONSIBILITY for them. Unquestionably, in my opinion.

Night Strike wrote:

Symmetry wrote:It's not exactly a leap. If you were told by an expert, someone that you trust not to be lying, that flipping a switch would cause a death, but were left free to flip that switch, would you flip it and say "hey- who knew?" when it resulted in death.

Except that switch doesn't rely on another human being making an independent choice. Flipping the switch is the choice you chose to make and the direct consequence was that someone died. This pastor chose to burn the Koran, but then other groups of people made their own choices to riot and murder people. The pastor's choice did not cause the other people to be violent; they chose to be violent of their own volition. There were perfectly capable of not acting violently, unlike the switch that led to the person's death. That's the difference between direct and indirect causation, which is why this pastor is not liable for the deaths that resulted.

Fair point- I'll add a psychopath with gun to the head of the victim to the analogy, awaiting an excuse to kill.

I really do want to emphasise that I don't think that placing blame on Pastor Jones is in any way an excuse of the murderers. They are not any less responsible for their actions because I believe he is responsible too.

Symmetry wrote:
A slippery slope argument. If we do one thing then we eventually do everything. I understood your point long ago, I just don't consider it much of a point. Placing a limit on freedom of speech is not the same as advocating tyranny. It's just an argument I disagree with entirely. You've decided to take an example and reduce it to absurdity. It's a rhetorical tactic, but it doesn't really bear much weight in reality.

As you hopefully have realised, we already have limits on freedom of speech. Somehow those limits have not resulted in tyranny anymore than putting a murderer in jail is a slippery slope towards putting everyone in jail.

If you advocate prosecuting Pastor Jones for burning the Koran, which you indeed have, then you have effectively outlawed the burning of the Koran. Anyone else who were to do the same thing would face the same prosecution.

Once you have done that, then others start asking questions, and follows a logical progression.

Not only that, but if you punish Jones you reward the violence that occurred. You just let people know that if others are violent enough that you will give in to their demands. Rewarding evil behavior.

symmetry wrote:He did of course, incite riot. He did not, of course, call for violence, but he certainly started these riots. He knew what the reaction would be. His speech was incendiary.

Get your facts straight. Jones did not incite those people in Afghanistan to go into a killing frenzy. They were incited by their own religious leaders into a riot using Pastor Jones actions as an excuse. The people who incited the violence were there in Afghanistan, not the US.

symmetry wrote:I'll go a bit further and say that he did the absolute best he possibly could to make his statement public.

Of course, if you are going to protest something, it doesn't do much good if no one knows about it.

symmetry wrote:The UN is considering pulling staff out of Afghanistan because of this.

So? The Afghans are quite opposed to foreign presence in their country. The coalition troops and the UN are uninvited. They are viewed as occupiers, rightfully so.

I would say this alone is the greatest concern for the safety of the troops and UN personnel. If not Jones, it will be some other excuse to rage against those who are in Afghanistan uninvited and unwelcome.

symmetry wrote:Again you seem to be using very hazily defined words here.

Free speech is broad, but there are certain guidelines in place. Jones broke not a single one of those guidelines, not one.

There is no such thing as Freedom of Speech here on this forum, nor should there be. It is owned by private individuals who can decide arbitrarily what can and can't be displayed. Jones did not take someone else Koran and burn it, that would be him destroying another's property. He did not stand on property owned by anyone who objected by his actions.

The Koran itself is a symbol of a religion. As a symbol, it is fair game to be used to protest against that religion if one so chooses.

symmetry wrote:What he did was indeed legal, and therefore free speech, but that does not mean it should be legal or free.

And there is the flaw in your thinking. You freely admit that Jones was practicing Free Speech. A basic human right. Then you say it shouldn't be. By the very act of you calling it Free Speech, you cannot then invoke the "Fire!" argument. You have established your belief that it was free speech while that other example is clearly not.

If it is Free Speech, then it should not be infringed upon, regardless of what comes from it. Indeed, free speech can lead to wars, violence, death. It also leads to rebellion, freedom, justice. By limiting it because of what bad can come from it also destroys what good can come from free speech. If you punish Jones for his free speech (which you admit was indeed free speech), then you are infringing upon free speech. There is no way you can argue or talk your way out of that.

That is why you should not go mucking around judging what is free speech or not simply based on your own prejudices.

It is either free or it is not.

symmetry wrote:Placing a limit on freedom of speech is not the same as advocating tyranny. It's just an argument I disagree with entirely.

Your justifications are the same as the totalitarian regime's reasons. It all comes out the same. People have their voice taken away.

I do not advocate nor defend Jones burning of the Koran. I defend and advocate for the ability for every person to express themselves under the God given human right of Free Speech. Some messages spoken by some will anger others, even me, but I understand that they are just doing as they believe.

As recourse, I can speak in opposition, freely. Those who listen to both sides can decide for themselves what it is they wish. But if those hearing another exercising free speech and become incensed to violence, then those committing the violence have decided on their own those actions. Blaming another's words and actions as their own justification for evil acts is poor form.

Islam and Western civilization have been clashing since the Islamic founding, and always will. The only way everyone can live in peace is to allow everyone to express themselves freely. That includes burning a book, or a flag, or standing up and saying "No, I will not give in to threats." It also includes allowing all to worship or not worship as they see fit. Because a neighbor burns his own book on his own lawn is no justification for you to go to another neighbor and kill him in retaliation. Period.

Symmetry wrote:

Night Strike wrote:

Symmetry wrote:It's not exactly a leap. If you were told by an expert, someone that you trust not to be lying, that flipping a switch would cause a death, but were left free to flip that switch, would you flip it and say "hey- who knew?" when it resulted in death.

Except that switch doesn't rely on another human being making an independent choice. Flipping the switch is the choice you chose to make and the direct consequence was that someone died. This pastor chose to burn the Koran, but then other groups of people made their own choices to riot and murder people. The pastor's choice did not cause the other people to be violent; they chose to be violent of their own volition. There were perfectly capable of not acting violently, unlike the switch that led to the person's death. That's the difference between direct and indirect causation, which is why this pastor is not liable for the deaths that resulted.

Fair point- I'll add a psychopath with gun to the head of the victim to the analogy, awaiting an excuse to kill.

I really do want to emphasise that I don't think that placing blame on Pastor Jones is in any way an excuse of the murderers. They are not any less responsible for their actions because I believe he is responsible too.

No! It must be either-or! It's a black-and-white world we live in, damn you!

Night Strike wrote:

Symmetry wrote:It's not exactly a leap. If you were told by an expert, someone that you trust not to be lying, that flipping a switch would cause a death, but were left free to flip that switch, would you flip it and say "hey- who knew?" when it resulted in death.

Except that switch doesn't rely on another human being making an independent choice. Flipping the switch is the choice you chose to make and the direct consequence was that someone died. This pastor chose to burn the Koran, but then other groups of people made their own choices to riot and murder people. The pastor's choice did not cause the other people to be violent; they chose to be violent of their own volition. There were perfectly capable of not acting violently, unlike the switch that led to the person's death. That's the difference between direct and indirect causation, which is why this pastor is not liable for the deaths that resulted.

EXACTLY!

"If you keep screaming at me, I'm going to go kill Tom." YOU didn't kill Tom, I did.
"If you type another response, I'm going to kill a chicken." YOU didn't kill a chicken, I did.
"If you burn another koran, I'm going to riot and kill people from the UN." YOU didn't kill people from the UN, I did.

FYI I haven't ever killed anybody and don't plan on it...these are just examples.

Woodruff wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

Night Strike wrote:

Symmetry wrote:It's not exactly a leap. If you were told by an expert, someone that you trust not to be lying, that flipping a switch would cause a death, but were left free to flip that switch, would you flip it and say "hey- who knew?" when it resulted in death.

Except that switch doesn't rely on another human being making an independent choice. Flipping the switch is the choice you chose to make and the direct consequence was that someone died. This pastor chose to burn the Koran, but then other groups of people made their own choices to riot and murder people. The pastor's choice did not cause the other people to be violent; they chose to be violent of their own volition. There were perfectly capable of not acting violently, unlike the switch that led to the person's death. That's the difference between direct and indirect causation, which is why this pastor is not liable for the deaths that resulted.

Fair point- I'll add a psychopath with gun to the head of the victim to the analogy, awaiting an excuse to kill.

I really do want to emphasise that I don't think that placing blame on Pastor Jones is in any way an excuse of the murderers. They are not any less responsible for their actions because I believe he is responsible too.

No! It must be either-or! It's a black-and-white world we live in, damn you!

It's funny that my involvement in this started with a simple request to add another poll option for people for people who think that both sides are wrong. Where it's ended up is Patches putting me on the side of murderers, tyrants, and, for some reason pussies, while placing Terry Jones on the side of Ghandi and Martin Luther King.

What are we- 5-6 pages on? Bedub still won't make it anything other than a loaded question.

bedub1 wrote:

Night Strike wrote:

Symmetry wrote:It's not exactly a leap. If you were told by an expert, someone that you trust not to be lying, that flipping a switch would cause a death, but were left free to flip that switch, would you flip it and say "hey- who knew?" when it resulted in death.

Except that switch doesn't rely on another human being making an independent choice. Flipping the switch is the choice you chose to make and the direct consequence was that someone died. This pastor chose to burn the Koran, but then other groups of people made their own choices to riot and murder people. The pastor's choice did not cause the other people to be violent; they chose to be violent of their own volition. There were perfectly capable of not acting violently, unlike the switch that led to the person's death. That's the difference between direct and indirect causation, which is why this pastor is not liable for the deaths that resulted.

EXACTLY!

"If you keep screaming at me, I'm going to go kill Tom." YOU didn't kill Tom, I did.
"If you type another response, I'm going to kill a chicken." YOU didn't kill a chicken, I did.
"If you burn another koran, I'm going to riot and kill people from the UN." YOU didn't kill people from the UN, I did.

FYI I haven't ever killed anybody and don't plan on it...these are just examples.

Indeed, terrible terrible examples. Also borderline gibberish. Change the poll dude. If you want debate, at least allow a range of opinions. If you want an echo chamber, I know from experience that it's satisfying, but it doesn't really add to anything.

Symmetry wrote:Indeed, terrible terrible examples. Also borderline gibberish. Change the poll dude. If you want debate, at least allow a range of opinions. If you want an echo chamber, I know from experience that it's satisfying, but it doesn't really add to anything.

What do you want the poll to say?

Right now it's 30 to 1. I wonder who the 1 person is...and if they truly believe it or think it's a joke. I would think that the radical Muslims that are so offended by the burning would all vote for the 1. They see the book burning as soooo bad, they react by killing people. Which obviously must not be worse than burning the book...else they probably wouldn't be doing it. They value the book more than human life, including their own. Several of the people that died were suicide bombers. OMG....you post again and i'll blow MYSELF up. /me lights fire to the book.

I think they aren't rational. And a reasonable person can only perceive rational consequences for his/her actions.

http://www.aljazeera.net/mritems/images ... 9_1_34.jpg

http://www.mosry.com/photos/poverty.JPG

http://www.akhbaralaalam.net/images/news/19390.jpg

http://rtarabic.com/images/photo/orig/d21/295.jpg

http://arabic.cnn.com/2009/scitech/6/20 ... _-1_-1.jpg

http://www.nabanews.net/photo/10-01-08-865513451.jpg

http://misrnews.net/web/images/42413povertys-child.jpg

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_JLed5OROin0/S ... nistan.jpg

I'm offering you some pics to give you an image about Afghanistan environment and how tough, shitty, violent & pissing off it is. do you really expect a 'civilized reaction' ?

If I held your wife or child hostage, and threatened to kill them if you left your house today, would you really leave it just because you have the right to do?

patches70 wrote:
If you advocate prosecuting Pastor Jones for burning the Koran, which you indeed have, then you have effectively outlawed the burning of the Koran. Anyone else who were to do the same thing would face the same prosecution.

Once you have done that, then others start asking questions, and follows a logical progression.

Not only that, but if you punish Jones you reward the violence that occurred. You just let people know that if others are violent enough that you will give in to their demands. Rewarding evil behavior.

Get your facts straight. Jones did not incite those people in Afghanistan to go into a killing frenzy. They were incited by their own religious leaders into a riot using Pastor Jones actions as an excuse. The people who incited the violence were there in Afghanistan, not the US.

Of course, if you are going to protest something, it doesn't do much good if no one knows about it.

So? The Afghans are quite opposed to foreign presence in their country. The coalition troops and the UN are uninvited. They are viewed as occupiers, rightfully so.

I would say this alone is the greatest concern for the safety of the troops and UN personnel. If not Jones, it will be some other excuse to rage against those who are in Afghanistan uninvited and unwelcome.

Free speech is broad, but there are certain guidelines in place. Jones broke not a single one of those guidelines, not one.

There is no such thing as Freedom of Speech here on this forum, nor should there be. It is owned by private individuals who can decide arbitrarily what can and can't be displayed. Jones did not take someone else Koran and burn it, that would be him destroying another's property. He did not stand on property owned by anyone who objected by his actions.

The Koran itself is a symbol of a religion. As a symbol, it is fair game to be used to protest against that religion if one so chooses.

And there is the flaw in your thinking. You freely admit that Jones was practicing Free Speech. A basic human right. Then you say it shouldn't be. By the very act of you calling it Free Speech, you cannot then invoke the "Fire!" argument. You have established your belief that it was free speech while that other example is clearly not.

If it is Free Speech, then it should not be infringed upon, regardless of what comes from it. Indeed, free speech can lead to wars, violence, death. It also leads to rebellion, freedom, justice. By limiting it because of what bad can come from it also destroys what good can come from free speech. If you punish Jones for his free speech (which you admit was indeed free speech), then you are infringing upon free speech. There is no way you can argue or talk your way out of that.

That is why you should not go mucking around judging what is free speech or not simply based on your own prejudices.

It is either free or it is not.

Your justifications are the same as the totalitarian regime's reasons. It all comes out the same. People have their voice taken away.

I do not advocate nor defend Jones burning of the Koran. I defend and advocate for the ability for every person to express themselves under the God given human right of Free Speech. Some messages spoken by some will anger others, even me, but I understand that they are just doing as they believe.

As recourse, I can speak in opposition, freely. Those who listen to both sides can decide for themselves what it is they wish. But if those hearing another exercising free speech and become incensed to violence, then those committing the violence have decided on their own those actions. Blaming another's words and actions as their own justification for evil acts is poor form.

Islam and Western civilization have been clashing since the Islamic founding, and always will. The only way everyone can live in peace is to allow everyone to express themselves freely. That includes burning a book, or a flag, or standing up and saying "No, I will not give in to threats." It also includes allowing all to worship or not worship as they see fit. Because a neighbor burns his own book on his own lawn is no justification for you to go to another neighbor and kill him in retaliation. Period.

Long post. I'll try to make mine a bit more succinct, because otherwise we're both heading towards a slippery slope of making our posts unreadable to others.

1) I don't want to see the burning of the Koran outlawed. I think there are times when it can be considered incitement to violence. It's a theory versus paractice argument. I would not, for example ban the statement "I'll give you a million dollars to kill my wife", I would however, advocate punishment for someone saying it to a killer if that resulted in the murder of your wife. What happens in practice is the area I would consider important.

2) Free speech is an ideal. I'm repeating myself, but there is literally nowhere where it is absolute. There are always limits. Criticising me for saying that there should be limits is a false premise unless you absolutely demand that speech, or indeed acts, should have no limits.

3) I seriously don't think you understand the idea of free speech. You describe it as a "God given right". I disagree. You also describe it as a human right. That's up for discussion. I would generally agree, but see point 2)

Now basically, your argument is that what he did is right because it's legal, and legal because it's right, all, of course, under God.
I take a bit more of sceptical view.

bedub1 wrote:

Symmetry wrote:Indeed, terrible terrible examples. Also borderline gibberish. Change the poll dude. If you want debate, at least allow a range of opinions. If you want an echo chamber, I know from experience that it's satisfying, but it doesn't really add to anything.

What do you want the poll to say?

Right now it's 30 to 1. I wonder who the 1 person is...and if they truly believe it or think it's a joke. I would think that the radical Muslims that are so offended by the burning would all vote for the 1. They see the book burning as soooo bad, they react by killing people. Which obviously must not be worse than burning the book...else they probably wouldn't be doing it. They value the book more than human life, including their own. Several of the people that died were suicide bombers. OMG....you post again and i'll blow MYSELF up. /me lights fire to the book.

I think they aren't rational. And a reasonable person can only perceive rational consequences for his/her actions.

Thanks for replying. The reason why you don't have a poll that really represents the arguments in thread is that the poll is weighted in favour of an answer you would like to hear.

I usually try and avoid loaded questions in polls. It's never really avoidable anyway, but I try:

Who is responsible for the violence?

1) The killers
2) Mostly the killers, but also Jones
3) 50/50
4) Mostly Jones, but also the Killers
5) Pastor Jones
6) Kittens are cute

Not the best that I could come up with, but a model of "I agree"; "I agree, but..."; "I'm not sure either way"; "I diagree, but..."; "I disagree". With the added option of just saying that you don't want to be involved and being generally pro-kitten. Pick your own way of phrasing it, but at least leave some of us the option to say that while one is worse, the other is certainly not good.

Bedub1

The premise of your poll has split the option into binary opposites - black or white - yes or no - This is the kind of hack-job 'journalism' that floods the current day mass-media. Let's take an issue, and split it down the middle. Right or wrong. Let's disregard all forms of critical thought - Take a side and stick with it.

By downgrading your options to 'which is worse', while implying that the two are somehow not related, you have created a false dichotomy - The 2nd option would not have happened without the first occuring - regardless to whether or not you think the Pastor is somehow responsible, it doesn't change the order or sequences.

You would fit in well at a hack-job media outlet (the one's you see on TV) - because this very (illogical) binary thinking is exactly how issues are played out in the media. Which is worse? Democrat or Republican? Christian or Muslim?
MAY THERE BE NO CRITICAL THINKING ABOUT THE ISSUES - YOU HAVE TWO CHOICES. PICK ONE!

radiojake wrote:Bedub1

The premise of your poll has split the option into binary opposites - black or white - yes or no - This is the kind of hack-job 'journalism' that floods the current day mass-media. Let's take an issue, and split it down the middle. Right or wrong. Let's disregard all forms of critical thought - Take a side and stick with it.

By downgrading your options to 'which is worse', while implying that the two are somehow not related, you have created a false dichotomy - The 2nd option would not have happened without the first occuring - regardless to whether or not you think the Pastor is somehow responsible, it doesn't change the order or sequences.

You would fit in well at a hack-job media outlet (the one's you see on TV) - because this very (illogical) binary thinking is exactly how issues are played out in the media. Which is worse? Democrat or Republican? Christian or Muslim?
MAY THERE BE NO CRITICAL THINKING ABOUT THE ISSUES - YOU HAVE TWO CHOICES. PICK ONE!

radiojake wrote:Bedub1

The premise of your poll has split the option into binary opposites - black or white - yes or no - This is the kind of hack-job 'journalism' that floods the current day mass-media. Let's take an issue, and split it down the middle. Right or wrong. Let's disregard all forms of critical thought - Take a side and stick with it.

By downgrading your options to 'which is worse', while implying that the two are somehow not related, you have created a false dichotomy - The 2nd option would not have happened without the first occuring - regardless to whether or not you think the Pastor is somehow responsible, it doesn't change the order or sequences.

You would fit in well at a hack-job media outlet (the one's you see on TV) - because this very (illogical) binary thinking is exactly how issues are played out in the media. Which is worse? Democrat or Republican? Christian or Muslim?
MAY THERE BE NO CRITICAL THINKING ABOUT THE ISSUES - YOU HAVE TWO CHOICES. PICK ONE!

I refused to vote in this stupid poll for exactly this reason. It's bullshit politics that republicans pull.

notyou2 wrote:

radiojake wrote:Bedub1

The premise of your poll has split the option into binary opposites - black or white - yes or no - This is the kind of hack-job 'journalism' that floods the current day mass-media. Let's take an issue, and split it down the middle. Right or wrong. Let's disregard all forms of critical thought - Take a side and stick with it.

By downgrading your options to 'which is worse', while implying that the two are somehow not related, you have created a false dichotomy - The 2nd option would not have happened without the first occuring - regardless to whether or not you think the Pastor is somehow responsible, it doesn't change the order or sequences.

You would fit in well at a hack-job media outlet (the one's you see on TV) - because this very (illogical) binary thinking is exactly how issues are played out in the media. Which is worse? Democrat or Republican? Christian or Muslim?
MAY THERE BE NO CRITICAL THINKING ABOUT THE ISSUES - YOU HAVE TWO CHOICES. PICK ONE!

I refused to vote in this stupid poll for exactly this reason. It's bullshit politics that republicans pull.

I really do not think that 'binary opposite' polling is in the exclusive domain of republicans - every mainstream media outlet does it -

radiojake wrote:

notyou2 wrote:

radiojake wrote:Bedub1

The premise of your poll has split the option into binary opposites - black or white - yes or no - This is the kind of hack-job 'journalism' that floods the current day mass-media. Let's take an issue, and split it down the middle. Right or wrong. Let's disregard all forms of critical thought - Take a side and stick with it.

By downgrading your options to 'which is worse', while implying that the two are somehow not related, you have created a false dichotomy - The 2nd option would not have happened without the first occuring - regardless to whether or not you think the Pastor is somehow responsible, it doesn't change the order or sequences.

You would fit in well at a hack-job media outlet (the one's you see on TV) - because this very (illogical) binary thinking is exactly how issues are played out in the media. Which is worse? Democrat or Republican? Christian or Muslim?
MAY THERE BE NO CRITICAL THINKING ABOUT THE ISSUES - YOU HAVE TWO CHOICES. PICK ONE!

I refused to vote in this stupid poll for exactly this reason. It's bullshit politics that republicans pull.

I really do not think that 'binary opposite' polling is in the exclusive domain of republicans - every mainstream media outlet does it -

NO! it is ONLY republicans! democrats are all reasonable and intelligent!

democrats good, republicans bad!

down with black and white thinking!

i'm notyou2!

radiojake wrote:Bedub1

The premise of your poll has split the option into binary opposites - black or white - yes or no - This is the kind of hack-job 'journalism' that floods the current day mass-media. Let's take an issue, and split it down the middle. Right or wrong. Let's disregard all forms of critical thought - Take a side and stick with it.

By downgrading your options to 'which is worse', while implying that the two are somehow not related, you have created a false dichotomy - The 2nd option would not have happened without the first occuring - regardless to whether or not you think the Pastor is somehow responsible, it doesn't change the order or sequences.

You would fit in well at a hack-job media outlet (the one's you see on TV) - because this very (illogical) binary thinking is exactly how issues are played out in the media. Which is worse? Democrat or Republican? Christian or Muslim?
MAY THERE BE NO CRITICAL THINKING ABOUT THE ISSUES - YOU HAVE TWO CHOICES. PICK ONE!

Interesting perspective, but not quite right.

My poll is comparing the two events, because I was curious what people thought about the two events, because only the two events occurred, and people have claimed one led directly to the other. I would expect a Muslim Extremist to vote for "burning the book" and the rest of us to vote for "murder". Because it seems like they think murder is okay and an appropriate response, but burning the book is not.

If the poll was like you are describing, it would have been more along the lines of "Who is responsible for the murder" with the only two options being the Muslim Extremists or the Priest. Black and white, and not allowing for partial responsibility like Symmetry was asking for.

I shall modify the poll to ask the question about where the blame lies for the murder.

Symmetry wrote:

bedub1 wrote:

Symmetry wrote:Indeed, terrible terrible examples. Also borderline gibberish. Change the poll dude. If you want debate, at least allow a range of opinions. If you want an echo chamber, I know from experience that it's satisfying, but it doesn't really add to anything.

What do you want the poll to say?

Right now it's 30 to 1. I wonder who the 1 person is...and if they truly believe it or think it's a joke. I would think that the radical Muslims that are so offended by the burning would all vote for the 1. They see the book burning as soooo bad, they react by killing people. Which obviously must not be worse than burning the book...else they probably wouldn't be doing it. They value the book more than human life, including their own. Several of the people that died were suicide bombers. OMG....you post again and i'll blow MYSELF up. /me lights fire to the book.

I think they aren't rational. And a reasonable person can only perceive rational consequences for his/her actions.

Thanks for replying. The reason why you don't have a poll that really represents the arguments in thread is that the poll is weighted in favour of an answer you would like to hear.

I usually try and avoid loaded questions in polls. It's never really avoidable anyway, but I try:

Who is responsible for the violence?

1) The killers
2) Mostly the killers, but also Jones
3) 50/50
4) Mostly Jones, but also the Killers
5) Pastor Jones
6) Kittens are cute

Not the best that I could come up with, but a model of "I agree"; "I agree, but..."; "I'm not sure either way"; "I diagree, but..."; "I disagree". With the added option of just saying that you don't want to be involved and being generally pro-kitten. Pick your own way of phrasing it, but at least leave some of us the option to say that while one is worse, the other is certainly not good.

#1 and #5 and the fundamentalist imams involved, and the US messing with the Middle East over the years, and the Neo-Cons for starting this mess... what else is there?

radiojake wrote: By downgrading your options to 'which is worse', while implying that the two are somehow not related, you have created a false dichotomy - The 2nd option would not have happened without the first occuring - regardless to whether or not you think the Pastor is somehow responsible, it doesn't change the order or sequences.

You don't know that. Extremists will always find an excuse to justify their hatred and violence. For all we know, they could have blamed the attack on Libya for their riot if the Koran burning had not happened. If they weren't already extremists, this solitary nobody pastor would not have been able move them to murder. Only an official act of a country could even theoretically have the stature to rile people up to riot and even murder. But even that's tenuous at best. They're extremists, regardless of the actions of others. End of story.

patches70 wrote:

Symmetry wrote:
A slippery slope argument. If we do one thing then we eventually do everything. I understood your point long ago, I just don't consider it much of a point. Placing a limit on freedom of speech is not the same as advocating tyranny. It's just an argument I disagree with entirely. You've decided to take an example and reduce it to absurdity. It's a rhetorical tactic, but it doesn't really bear much weight in reality.

As you hopefully have realised, we already have limits on freedom of speech. Somehow those limits have not resulted in tyranny anymore than putting a murderer in jail is a slippery slope towards putting everyone in jail.

If you advocate prosecuting Pastor Jones for burning the Koran, which you indeed have, then you have effectively outlawed the burning of the Koran. Anyone else who were to do the same thing would face the same prosecution.

Not necessarily at all. Methodology has a lot to do with this situation, in my opinion. Pastor Jones made damn sure that he got as much publicity as possible for the action. Someone who simply burned the Koran would not.

bedub1 wrote:What do you want the poll to say?
Right now it's 30 to 1. I wonder who the 1 person is...and if they truly believe it or think it's a joke.

It was me. I voted for the burning because the entire poll was stupidly worded, and I wanted to point out how stupidly worded it was.

I hate to invoke Godwin's law, but how totalitarian can you get to kill people over a book? So, Definitely the protesters' fault.

Also, I could go to the local bookstore and buy a Koran, and burn it in the desert for kindling, and nobody would know. There would be no outrage, and if this were somehow personally edifying to me, then GREAT! However, the fact that this news got not just down the block, but AROUND THE WORLD, proves the guy was looking for a fight. Borderline intoxicated. So, it is definitely his fault. (But not legally punishable, nor should it be.)

And, because we are dealing in abstracts, the fault CAN be defined as wholly belonging to each group. But not just each group, but each supporting member of each group.