I know: Press TV is not helping here at all. Did anyone actually burn pages from the Quran outside the White House on Saturday? Not that it would matter much if they did: the rioters are to blame for their own actions, period.
Church will burn Quran
- Thread starter baftan
- Start date
I know: Press TV is not helping here at all. Did anyone actually burn pages from the Quran outside the White House on Saturday? Not that it would matter much if they did: the rioters are to blame for their own actions, period.
There's a lot worse you could do with it. I wonder what would happen then.
What the weather people should do is find the butterfly which is causing all these Typhoons and kill it
Sorry I should have worded it differently. It's definitely legitimate to protest against radical Islam's terroristic nature. But I just wanted to point out that one can protest against Islam or be anti-Islam without it having to do with terror specifically.
while true it is still no excuse for being a provocative asshat for the sake of being a provocative asshat
This, too, is very true.
The whole thing is pointless. Personally, I'd ban it, but it's obvious that I'm a little more totalitarian than most people here. Been a lot of jabbering about Constitutions and Amendments and whatnot, see? Some of thems Americans think it's a right. It is, actually, but that's no excuse for being foolish.
No, as they are not exactly the same. Normally society (or the state if you like) does a good part of "asset control". For example, if I own a small plane, the state will tell me where and when I can fly it. Where and when I can fire my gun is very limited.
My point was (for SAM) that the concept of ownership cannot be eliminated,as she seems to want - all societies have some concept of "ownership" - a special relationship between some items and a certain person or group of people.
No society yet recognizes ownership of all valuable items, for example no one owns the air; but as time passes more items tend to become "owned." For example, if you install a solar energy collector, you may gain some ownership of the sunlight falling on it in that your neighbor cannot without compensation build a tall structure that shadows your collector in increasingly more legal jurisdictions.
In primitive societies few items were owned; probably the spear you made was yours, your animal skin clothes, and the successful hunting group owned the meat they brought back. Not much else was owned.
In some sense the more advanced a society is, the more it extends the concept of ownership.
Possibly someday as urban air pollution grows worse, you may pay the owner of the air purification and sky dome system you live inside of for the clean air you breath. Most now pay for the water they drink and no-one did 100 years ago.
Last edited by a moderator:
Uhm. So you think that Western meddling, destabilization, and oil grabbing in the ME, going back a century or more, and the more recent sanctions and military forays into Muslim nations - Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, (soon Iran) etc. is not disrespectful? And somehow you end up pointing the finger squarely at Islam? Unbelievable. :m:
Sadly GeoffP, the crux around this
IMO, no tension, no mountain. Its going to take decades to undo. :m:
What about Shinto polytheism? Isn't THAT also an insult to monotheism? Isn't monotheism an insult to polytheism?
This guy's head is crammed right good and far up his own ass and yet thousands of brainwashed sheepeople swarm around to smell the muffled farts that part his lips.
Which extremists are "They"? The American ones or the Islamic ones?
One of the page rippers said, "the charade that Islam is a peaceful religion must end". I concur.
I don't agree with creating the state of Israel. Otherwise, most of these problems would never have happened. Of the countries you list, the US was in about half of them legitimately. Iraq was a disaster before it even began, and it always will be. However, the Middle East is rife with human rights violations.
No excuse? Pardon? Just because you do not agree with his excuse doesn't mean he doesn't have one and allow you to dismiss it as "no excuse".
"Provocative asshat"? There are millions of people every single day all around the world being "provocative asshats". Only their stories aren't given centre stage + spotlight for the world to see.
And he wasn't being idiotic FOR THE SAKE of being idiotic. C'mon, that's child's thinking. To him and from his perspective, he had reasons. Definitely not the same thing as doing something for the sake of doing something. That statement in and of itself is idiotic.
Last edited:
Big Chiller
Registered Senior Member
Polytheism and monotheism mutually insulting to each other? LOL. Perhaps you need to learn that an insult involves a particular action.
Big Chiller
Registered Senior Member
I suppose if the problem here ultimately lies with the 'sin' of mindless and unnecessary provocation then I would ask you all to consider the following analogue:
Some women dress provocatively. If a woman shows off her assets (provoking male response) and happens to walk past a male sex addict who cannot resist, drugs her, kidnaps her and rapes her. Do we here say... "Pshhh, idiotic woman, she should have known better than dressing so provocatively. She should have known better. Idiot"
After all, sex addict = uncontrollable urge to satisfy sexual cravings.. how is it possibly the attacker's fault for not being able to control himself?
But doesn't the woman have the right to dress provocatively? Just as Terry Jones has the right to destroy his possessions in his yard? Both are non-violent actions. Both can elicit violence. But it's those that take violent, aggressive physical action in retaliation that are the wrongdoers. This should be clear.
Some women dress provocatively. If a woman shows off her assets (provoking male response) and happens to walk past a male sex addict who cannot resist, drugs her, kidnaps her and rapes her. Do we here say... "Pshhh, idiotic woman, she should have known better than dressing so provocatively. She should have known better. Idiot"
After all, sex addict = uncontrollable urge to satisfy sexual cravings.. how is it possibly the attacker's fault for not being able to control himself?
But doesn't the woman have the right to dress provocatively? Just as Terry Jones has the right to destroy his possessions in his yard? Both are non-violent actions. Both can elicit violence. But it's those that take violent, aggressive physical action in retaliation that are the wrongdoers. This should be clear.
Ah, proclaiming polytheism to be wrong, even sinful, IS an action.
In one of the mythical fairytales found in the Qur'an, the Protagonist, mohammad, refuses to set his little toe in a city until his henchmen rampage around destroying private property (the traditional indigenous people's religious iconism). THAT could be considered an insulting story IF it's held up as model behavior. It's like saying Bush is wonderful because he sent his army into Baghdad and destroyed all the Muslim idolatry. You don't think that praising Bush II actions in Iraq could be considered insulting?
Is it insulting when Christians preach the Qur'an is a book of evil spawned by a Satan possessed Mohammad? You don't find that insulting a little? Of course you do, or have you cut your nose off to spite your face?
Doesn't the Big Bang exclude the possibility of Polytheism being true?
Actually, I think I mentioned this in my first post on the subject. It makes no difference whatsoever, though: the rioters are to blame for their own actions, period. Full stop.
Straw: the tensions were always there, IMHO. Bush didn't burn any Qurans.
No. It make it more likely to be true. The Big Bang was quite an event - Do you really think just one god could pull that off?