Florida Pastor Terry Jones Burns Quran After Mock Trial (w/ video)

The answer is no, it's not a reason to kill somebody, and I don't know why this is such a difficult concept for you to grasp. Literally no one said that what Terry Jones did is illegal. The murderers are 100% responsible for the murder. He's not legally liable for anything.

But for those you're addressing, they have every right to argue that it SHOULD be illegal to incite hatred in an extremist way, but IMO this would have to be completely detached from its consequences > I think it would be idiotic to link this hypothetical crime to the number of deaths or size of uproar or whatever. It would have to be completely independent to reflect the fact that those who commit subsequent crimes such as murder are compeltely liable for their actions alone. Free expression/speech is limited in some way everywhere in the world, and in a variety of ways - take the example of Germany, where many types of hate speech are illegal. While I don't agree with it, I don't think it's so outrageous for someone to argue for it.

In my own personal opinion, he should be far more responsible with his rights and he's a giant douchebag. If I were him, I would feel responsible on a personal level, even if I'm not legally liable.

 

Oh my God, are you serious?

I suspect you knew about the charade from day 1 though, right?

Can you please not repeat the above statements ad nauseum, I'm afraid someone will believe yo.. actually, carry on. lol

 

Mathloom, you have already demonstrated countless times that you do not understand the concept of free speech.

 

Then shouldn't we try to improve their living conditions, give them something to live and work for, instead of condemning "these guys" as savage murderers? Raise their standard of living, and they'll worry more about getting an ipad knockoff than blowing up buildings miles away from home.

I don't mean costly and "arbitrary" interventions either, but rather a wholesale acknowledgement of our foreign policy and the trilions we've spent so far to maintain the status quot.

 

Oh really Mr freedom? Mr "why don't Muslims act like Westerners so that there wouldn't be problems"? Mr "deny french women the right to cover their face"? Mr "Muslims praying in public annoy me"?

It seems you're a champion of freedom when the Geert Wilders', Marine Le Pens, Terry Jones', or Thilo Sarrazins are involved.

The rest of the time? Not so much.

Let freedom reign... but selectively, according to your preferences.

Your opinion is SO important to me.

 

The answer to that should be no. Murderers are murderers, they have to be held accountable.

Think of it this way. If everyone in the world tried to come up with a super super super super basic fundamental law for which there are no excuses.. "DO NOT MURDER" would probably be the one we could all agree on, which can't be significantly excused unless someone has medical mental problems.

While your idea is a good way to avoid this in the future, we still have to hold these people accountable for their actions.

 

Why don't you go back to defending putting rape victims in jail for 8 months and hoping that a cartoonist lives in fear for the rest of his life because of a cartoon. Spare us your internet babble. You have already shown your true colors.

 

I'm not denying accountability. I'm suggesting that if their lives are hell on earth, then we as spectators would be better served looking into our mindset and actions (or lack of) rather than moralizing the senseless acts they've committed and writing it off as some cultural aberration that we have to deal with.

 

LOL! Hilarious.

As far as any of us know, she's not a rape victim. Those arguing with me in the thread have made it clear that their problem is that they feel it is insensitive to SPECULATE about this case since we don't know the truth. FYI, your assumption that she was raped is also speculation, and if I'm guilty of anything, then so are you. Thanks for clearing that up for us.

As for the cartoonist, I literally took those comments back. It's really just a problem in your head now.

You're free to not read my posts, as is anyone else who would like to be "spared". Luckily for the world, very few people share your opinions, and you don't really speak for anyone but the people I mentioned in my earlier post and, similarly, other extemists around the world.

 

Completely agree, that's the only logical way forward.

 

Blablablablablabla. Your mindset once again became blatantly clear in that thread. Babble as much as you want, but you have no credibility.

 

... I'm upfront with my mindset and open to criticism.

You are secretive with your mindset, and selective. Your mindset is clear here: the woman was definitely raped here, the authorities did not enforce the law and are corrupt with absolutely no motives, and it's ok to speculate as long as the speculation favors your opinion.

Surprise surprise, the only thing that is wrong to do is to defend the enforcement of the law (even though I condemned the law), and speculating (just like you) about the likelihood that she was raped.

It is completely obvious what you do here. You want to stay in the technicalities because it favors you, and say "blablabla" when it comes to fundamental issues because you know you are caught there.

YOU HAVE NO CREDIBILITY. lol Yeah, that's super convincing. Basically, you've said nothing in your last post, you know it, and it's precisely because you can't find a way around the logic. Subversive bigotry. I told you to read about it. Should be easy, it reads almost as if it's your bio.

 

That's wrong by exercising his right his violating the right of hundreds of thousands of Muslim Americans Who have the right to practice their relegion and live with respect and without humilation

this term is called abusing the law or abusing others right by using your right

My country an undeveloped undemocratic country is familiar with this term so its shocking the the US is not

Anyways we cant do anything about it .. real Muslims know that if he escapes the judgement of the law he wont escape the judgement of god

 

U can always expect to find ATW in these threads

 

Both is completely wrong.

You are the one that keeps qualifying his statements, makes very ambiguous statements and seems to wiggle and conceal his true feelings at times.

Taquiyah?

 

That's nonsense. They have a right to practice their religion without humiliation or interference by the STATE, it does not mean they can force their standards of being offended upon others.

No, it's understandable that you do not understand the concept of free speech, given that you are from an undeveloped undemocratic country. Free speech is not defined or limited by the real or purported feelings of the most sensitive group of people.

I wish you the best for your country.

 

He has a strange obsession and an uncontrollable level of hate towards Muslims.

 

Burning a book doesn't interfere with your ability to practice your religion, and you do not have a right to be respected and not made fun of, or criticized, or disagreed with.

There's that familiar refrain again... "real muslims".

We hear this in religion every time somebody does something that doesn't jive with somebody of the same faith.

It's getting really tired...

 

You hear that in everything. Real Americans, real liberals, real conservatives, real Rockets fans, etc.

 

It really just boils down to:

--> = which leads to

1. Somebody (Person A) does Event X --> Other people (Persons B,C, D...) do Event Y

a. Is A responsible (partially or wholly) for Event Y? ATW's argument is

*Regardless of what happens here* --> Other people do Event Y

while obviously others are saying 'A is responsible for Y, as he was direct trigger'. Personally I'm torn between the two, so I can't decide. But how about what to do with Terry Jones?

I'm going to use a perhaps not so apt example for this event. Let's say a school kid (Person A) verbally taunts and mocks something very close to Person B (another school kid, and let's say A is mocking B's family or something). Should Person A be punished for doing so? An argument against is that A shouldn't be, as after all that would be restricting his freedom of speech, but doesn't precedence show the opposite? (for those who don't get it, I'm just basically saying that people who 'insult' (now that's a subjective word!) others, should those people be punished? We do it for somethings but not others, why?)