Discrimination

Jon wrote:
Jestor wrote:
@ Br. Jon, I too have wondered at the tolerance of these other cultures... They really hate Americans... Or so it seems...
Not only Americans but Europeans too. Not only that but any public Christian Symbols, buildings etc. And to top it all there is even the death penalty for anyone responsible for converting a Muslim. And there is probably more.[/quote]

Yes, American news agencies... lol... I always see Americans tortured in effigy...



Orca wrote:
What happens when people do not have enough food, water and work, even in the west the get angry. This anger needs a focus. It is naturally directed outward to the common evil (as perceived by the religious zealots - of all religions) that unfortunately for all the world is the only superpowers remaining.

Yes... Anger needs focus.. whether the anger of a child, or a country.. It definatly needs focus...

discrimination is essential. Employers discriminate against people who are less qualified, with less experience, etc. Doctors discriminate against inferior drugs. When we eat, we dicriminate against things that aren't edible. Without discrimination, merit is meaningless, and without meritocracy, there can be no justice. Life's fairness is random enough as it is, there is no point in making it even less fair by artificially altering some of the rules... An example is the UK allowing people from one community to make death threats but forbidding people from other communities to burn books.

The same goes for intolerance. There are many things I don't tolerate. Viruses and bacteria trying to kill me for instance. Pop-up adverts. Stupid politicians. Pedophiles. The list goes on. I'm actually proud of my intolerance, feel comfortable with it and am honest about it.


There are three very important things absolutely necessary in a modern, free society:

\"Your freedom ends where mine begins\"
Freedom of thought (right to have an opinion, all opinions are biased by their nature, equality applies)
Freedom of expression (right to communicate one's opinion)



Burning a book doesn't infringe on the book's rights, because books have no rights. Therefore there is such a thing as freedom to burn a book.
Thinking that muslims or infidels should be slaughtered is a right. Doing the actual slaughtering isn't.
Telling others that muslims or infidels should be slaughtered is a right too. doing the actual slaughtering isn't.

Now, if this priest genuinely hates muslims, he could simply kill them. Even a couple of high profile assassinations would instigate fear, prompting muslims to hide, and harming the growth of the religion. Unfortunately for non-muslims, he understands the \"\"Your freedom ends where mine begins\"\" rule and chooses to destroy a copy of a symbol instead of going after the real thing. The rioters however... worse than the reddest rednecks in \"idiocracy\". I'm sure even that priest is wondering if the reaction to his koran-powered barbecue is hilarious or really sad.

ren wrote:

Burning a book doesn't infringe on the book's rights, because books have no rights. Therefore there is such a thing as freedom to burn a book.
Thinking that muslims or infidels should be slaughtered is a right. Doing the actual slaughtering isn't.
Telling others that muslims or infidels should be slaughtered is a right too. doing the actual slaughtering isn't.

Now, if this priest genuinely hates muslims, he could simply kill them. Even a couple of high profile assassinations would instigate fear, prompting muslims to hide, and harming the growth of the religion. Unfortunately for non-muslims, he understands the \"\"Your freedom ends where mine begins\"\" rule and chooses to destroy a copy of a symbol instead of going after the real thing. The rioters however... worse than the reddest rednecks in \"idiocracy\". I'm sure even that priest is wondering if the reaction to his koran-powered barbecue is hilarious or really sad.

Good point.. however, if one knows that kind of reaction will be incited by their actions, and does them anyway, are they not as guilty as those who did the killing? While it's true that the afflicted party could choose to do nothing, and render the display as just that, he knew that they would react in that manner, much the same as if one of them were to burn a copy of his Christian bible. This is of course, just one possible viewpoint of the larger picture.

Good point.. however, if one knows that kind of reaction will be incited by their actions, and does them anyway, are they not as guilty as those who did the killing? While it's true that the afflicted party could choose to do nothing, and render the display as just that, he knew that they would react in that manner, much the same as if one of them were to burn a copy of his Christian bible. This is of course, just one possible viewpoint of the larger picture.

I assume he knew the implications of his act. It likely was a calculated move, designed to prove islam isn't a religion of peace, therefore justifying the book burning. Self-fulfilling prophecies are fascinating.

man burns koran >> muslims kill UN employees >> next? retaliations, direct or not. Libertarians and muslims can't live together, and at one point or another, things will get nasty. The problem is, burning their holy book makes them believe even more in the complementary virgins of the afterlife, a significant morale boost that could backfire big time on the long run.