Burning the Qur'an

What's the point of anything Fred Phelps does other than make him tempting to be sniped?

Indeed I did, but I think that the positive effects of Park51 will outweigh the bad ones, therefore I support it. I don't think that the positive effects from burning the Qurans (If there even is any, I can't see it.) will outweigh the negative effects from this. Therefore I don't support it. Of course the best thing would be that Muslims would be chill about this, but we all know that's not gonna happen.

So you're saying that as long as the good outweighs the bad, it's alright to do something?

...Who's Fred Phelps? Is he related to that swimmer guy, Michael Phelps? IF Fred Phelps is the guy organizing this burning thing, then your comment's pretty redundant.

In this case, yes. Of course that is depending on the situation.

The statement was directed at users who believe in humanity's rights to be assholes.



You mean only when directed at you?

Seems more like a personal problem rather than an issue with my argumentative style.



I'm not bothered by the fact that you think this is wrong. Just trying to make you realize your contradictory nature.

Although building of the mosque was not intended to offend, they are still inadvertently provoking people. But they do have the right to carry on with the project because it is not against the law. Although you had other reasons, the fact that you took a stance supporting the decision to allow the building of the mosque shows you believe it's okay for offensive behavior as long as they aren't infringing upon any laws.

In this case, the qur'an burner's behaviors are offensive as well. The only difference is that this is their only purpose. But they are still within legal rights to carry out this behavior.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Phelps


Chlor: But the thing is, when you make a law, you have to consider how it might apply to things outside of what you think about. This is why I quoted the phrase "The road to Hell is paved with good intention." Because while you may have good intentions, it can, and will be used against you.

In this case, yes. Of course that is depending on the situation.



Of course you do, I realize this too, but a law against shit like this, a law that says "Hate Speech, Harassment, Slander and Incitement to violence against a group of people based on their race, sexuality, faith, ethnic/national origins is punishable by law" is something that I think would only bring good. As I said, it exists here in Sweden, it exists in the UK, in Canada, in Germany, it's has been used successfully and is not only based on a theory. I personally think it's a good thing, that this time the good intentions actually did some good.



Basically yes.



Yes, and you stated the difference, the intention. Park51 is not intended to be offensive, the book burning is. And yes, you have to take other reasons into the calculation., I wouldn't say that only because they aren't infringing upon any laws things are excusable, since then I would support the burnings.



He's the leader for the "Westboro Baptist Church" and pulls stupid shit on a regular basis, for example they're the ones with the signs at soliders funerals, claiming that the soldiers death was divine punishment and shiz, he also condemn homosexualls. And the Royal House of Sweden for reason I'm not sure of.

Only one thing comes to my mind after reading this, Calculated Risk.
I agree that it's not a good thing, or smart, to provoke someone or be offensive,
but that's just my opinion.
The government doesn't have the right to say you can't be an asshole unless you break the law by doing so.
Burning the Qur'an, as said before, is likely to lead to violence, but the government can't step in.
It is out of their authority, and in the hands of the Qur'an burners and those who want to hurt said people very badly.
So by burning the Qur'an or committing an act similarly offensive without breaking the law, a calculated risk is taken.
Will they beat the shit out of me? Do I care? How many limbs will they break?
A preemptive strike by the government is bull, and all in all I think being killed for it is scarier than going to jail...

Look, what the hell are you saying? I'm trying to say that the guy has every right to burn the Qur'an, but in the end, what he's doing is stupid. What does he really have to gain from this other than just showing the Muslims, "Haha, I'm not afraid to burn your stupid books" and make him feel better about himself? He's a fucking idiot. At the very least, he should be out there, being kind and tolerant, and preaching about his religion to non-believers. That would be something "productive", at the very least, for his religion.

He should really be out there doing a real job.

Also, the "good" and "bad" things you've done in your life do not cancel each other out. They both pile up, and you are judged by what you have done wrong, and then what you have done right. Not necessarily in that order.

Why do you think I was attacking you?

I didn't explicitly state that I think you're attacking me. But I am getting confused as to what the hell are you saying?

You asked what the point was.

So I responded by saying what was the point to what Fred Phelps was doing.

Pretty much, those people are just like that, completely believing what they are doing is the right thing. It may seem pointless to us, but that's what it is to them.

Doesn't make what they are doing any better though. And you can have no doubt that Fred Phelps will burn in hell.

Thank you. And I'm sorry I somehow implied I knew who the hell Fred Phelps was. And no, it doesn't seem pointless, it is pointless.

I just find it extrememly sad that the few extremist but vocal people/group are always the ones that jeopardizing relations between religions or nations. While I have my reservations regarding Park51, it's not like I am actively against the plan (though the entire premise was flawed to begin with). Same thing here, this idiot is obviously trying to stir up trouble most likely in light of the Park51 incident. Why people, whether it be followers of that Qur'an burner or followers of Extremist Muslims, are persuaded by arrogant, prejudiced, and plainly wrong idiots, I don't know; it just is.

You are correct, which is why it's nice to know that the leaders of Israel and Palestine have agreed to continually meet every two weeks until they reach a peace; in light of some group purposely trying to sabotage the peace talks by killing innocent Israelis. http://www.voanews.com/english/news/Israel-Palestinians-to-Resume-Peace-Talks-in-Washington-102055533.html

Eh, I like this.

Intended or not, the result is the same.

Analogy time:

There are two doctors. They're both treating patients with the same disease. The doctors both recommend their respective patients with the same pills.

There is one catch: Both patients have a secondary illness that will cause the subjects to die if these pills are ingested. The first doctor is unaware of this, while the other knows the consequences but intends to kill the patient regardless. The two doctors are about to prescribe these pills.

Do you stop both?

Burning the Qur'an is meaningless at best, utter idiot at usual, scum of the earth at worst. What happened after he burn the Our'an? Sure, some pride and egoistical satisfaction but what about the others that came after it? Only one thing is certain; It'll never be anything good.

I guess in the end, both sides of the argument lead to the same point. Both are not really the right answer because in some way or another, someone is going to be offended or oppressed. Its true, that freedom may be the best in some situations, but its not the perfect answer to all problems because someone who acts freely is going to potentially in some way offend someone. In the same way, limmiting the freedom of people in what they can say or do may be a better answer sometimes, but someones opinion down the line will be neglected and not heard.

In my opinion, people need to be fluid in their thinking, in other words to swicth between the two. That in my mind would be the perfect solution, however the world is not perfect. For such a way of living to exist, some group of people will have to deam what is able to be said or done and in what situations (i.e. goverments or any other groups who control countries). Lets face it, there is no such person or groups of persons able to do this.

Ultimately what im trying to say is peace or everybody agreeing with each other is impossible. Peace for humans is a contridiction. It's an idea conceived for the perpous of hoping what are species could maybe accomplish. Someone somewhere is not going to agree with you and theres nothing that can reall be done about it.